349 replies to this topic

[ahw911]

 

 

One thing which makes me puzzle about this "analysis" is how exactly did he calculate the strength of each era?! This also sees both Prost and Senna well down the list.

 

I think he descirbes that in the explanation under "competition effect"

[Rinehart]

 

Schumacher?  He won lots of races in an era in which nobody has died over two decades of racing.  He won them on identikit third-fourth gear circuits designed by a mate of Bernie's.  He won them in an era where you don't have to change gear, you didn't have to think about tyre management (except for one year in which he did - and got bitchslapped by most of the field).  He won them in an era when the only person in the same equipment was his team-mate - who was denied the advantages of things like the same telemetry or the same contract.  He won them in an era in which for a couple of years his closest challenger was David bloody Coulthard.  He won them in an era that when he looked like losing his mate Max changed the rules to help him. And when another driver came along who showed that Schumacher was not necessarily all that, he was gone.

 

 

1. Perhaps you have forgotten the fatalities and injuries in those 2 decades, or the fact that after Senna's death the clock was reset, they feared every race would be the next.

2. Drivers dying in other eras removes talent from those grids. How would Clark surviving have affected JYS record... But yes, he won lots more than anyone in that era... by beating the others.

3. Since when are any of them are identikit circuits, least of all Monaco, Monza, Suzuka, Canada, Spa & Silverstone

4. Semi automatic is not fully automatic but it makes it harder for the driver to make a difference, plus the drivers are busy 101 other things on the steering wheel

5. He didn't have to think about tyre wear...  All zero stop races we're they? No. 

6. He's by far not the first or the last driver of a team to be recognised as clearly superior to the extent he was treated as no 1. Until they wilfully offer this position to the worse driver, I'll say its deserved. Also being no 1 in the second best car is not an advantage over being equal in the best car, just ask Vettel.

7. His closest challenger for 2 years was DC? I'm not sure I recall... But without MS on the grid, I expect the rest would be perceived as better, without that barometer and after all, sharing 7 titles...

8. The rules were changed to help him. I think if they'd changed the rules to running milkfloats, MS would still have won. He was the best. Perhaps some of the rules made it harder for some who were worse.

9. Obviously a career ends at some point, most of the time on the decline. Its a seriously disingenuous point in time to judge a whole drivers career.

[garagetinkerer]

In 7 years in F1, Lewis holds a 6-1 record in years beating teammates. That record includes 2 former WDC's in Button x2 and Alonso. If we account for Lewis blowing it in 2010, you also have to account for Schumi blowing it in 1997 if you want to play that game.

 

It is what you like, but for me Hamilton races in a much more competitive era, and ticks more boxes of what I like in a racing driver. I have said in the past that I do not really care about amount of WDC's, I only really care about relative performance. If people rate drivers based on WDC's, then that is fair enough, I am not going to hound them and belittle them,

 

 

 

Senna scored a 2nd place with a Toleman in 1984, and won races in that Lotus against stronger cars. The guy in 1993 had a weaker car than Hill and Schumacher (for most of the year), but managed to out-score both.

I'm not playing games. I sincerely asked this, because Hamilton as yet doesn't have total number of race wins when he had race winning cars all along, which Schumacher did in properly second rate cars (which Senna gets much praise for), and incidentally Schumacher doesn't get much praise for it. Talk about changing the yardstick, and you're not guilty of it, but when it come to Schumacher, all known and used yardsticks are just simply discarded and "statistically the best driver" is used. Heck, i've seen commentators giggle and sneer as they uttered it on telly. Surely you don't think his Benettons in '94-'95 were better than Williams, or Ferrari was better than Williams in '96-'97, or again, Ferrari in '98-'99. All those race wins came against considerably better/ faster cars. Heck, Senna doesn't have as many wins in slower cars. Senna a won 29 races out of a total 43 from pole, which should tell you a bit about the quality of the cars he had had.

 

By the way, i do count '97, '98, and '06 against Schumacher as failure to convert. Unlike some others, i don't like to change my yardstick, because it becomes inconvenient. In '93 didn't Schumacher have a lot more mechanical issues and resultant retirements than Senna? Now who is playing games   If you really want to compare, compare '92 season. McLaren was definitely a much faster car than Benetton and yet, Schumacher outscored Senna. Ahem, Benetton won 1 race (a wet one at Belgium) that year, compared to 5 for McLaren.

 

I do not like the insinuation that i'm hounding and belittling you, and i'm hoping you didn't mean for it come across like that. We all are sharing opinions, and opinions evolve with time and help from wise old forumers like ob1, pob, blake etc who we both knew, and talking about things between good friends (like yourself). I asked you this question sincerely, as if Schumacher in your opinion should be rated lower than Hamilton, then quite positively a very good, and in my opinion a more compelling case can be made to rate definitively rate Hamilton above Senna as well. As every thing that you could credit to Senna similar could be applied to Schumacher to a similar degree. Everything except teaming with Prost for two years. Ahem, Honda had a history of doing shady things, ask Rosberg Snr, Mansell etc. Or, do you think Berger was better than Prost, as Berger qualified closer to Senna i think than Prost did  So yes, in my opinion, if we are discussing Hamilton to be rated better than Schumacher, it will most certainly extend to Senna, and quite easily.

[sennafan24]

 

 

By the way, i do count '97, '98, and '06 against Schumacher as failure to convert. Unlike some others, i don't like to change my yardstick, because it becomes inconvenient. In '93 didn't Schumacher have a lot more mechanical issues and resultant retirements than Senna? Now who is playing games   If you really want to compare, compare '92 season. McLaren was definitely a much faster car than Benetton and yet, Schumacher outscored Senna. Ahem, Benetton won 1 race (a wet one at Belgium) that year, compared to 5 for McLaren.

 

Senna'a reliability in 1992 was woeful. Brundle was as fast as Senna at times in 1992, showing that the Benetton was much faster than some give it credit for. I have underlined my case as to why I think Berger and Ellio were strong teammates numerous times on this board (Berger in this very thread. Senna and Schumi reliability in 1993 was fairly even, maybe Schumi had 1 more mechanical failure if memory serves me correctly.

 

Senna's pole conversation is distorted, as the Lotus cars he drove were as strong in race trim as qualifying (bit like the Mercedes in 2013), plus the later Williams poles which were rendered meaningless for similar reasons. I am not saying Schumi never won a race whilst not having the best car (he did multiple times), nor am I dismissing Rubens as a average driver (again I have defined my opinion of Rubens in this thread, he was decent but not as good as Berger was in 1990-1992)

[as65p]

I'm not playing games. I sincerely asked this, because Hamilton as yet doesn't have total number of race wins when he had race winning cars all along, which Schumacher did in properly second rate cars (which Senna gets much praise for), and incidentally Schumacher doesn't get much praise for it. Talk about changing the yardstick, and you're not guilty of it, but when it come to Schumacher, all known and used yardsticks are just simply discarded and "statistically the best driver" is used. Heck, i've seen commentators giggle and sneer as they uttered it on telly. Surely you don't think his Benettons in '94-'95 were better than Williams, or Ferrari was better than Williams in '96-'97, or again, Ferrari in '98-'99. All those race wins came against considerably better/ faster cars. Heck, Senna doesn't have as many wins in slower cars. Senna a won 29 races out of a total 43 from pole, which should tell you a bit about the quality of the cars he had had.

The Beneton of 1994 was better at least for part of the season, Adrian Newey would be the first to admit that. And that's leaving aside the whole legailty business.

 

By the way, i do count '97, '98, and '06 against Schumacher as failure to convert. Unlike some others, i don't like to change my yardstick, because it becomes inconvenient. In '93 didn't Schumacher have a lot more mechanical issues and resultant retirements than Senna? Now who is playing games  

 

 

No.

 

If you really want to compare, compare '92 season. McLaren was definitely a much faster car than Benetton and yet, Schumacher outscored Senna. Ahem, Benetton won 1 race (a wet one at Belgium) that year, compared to 5 for McLaren.

 

Ahem, and Senna had  a lot more mechanical issues and resultant retirements that season. Really, this time.
 

 

I do not like the insinuation that i'm hounding and belittling you, and i'm hoping you didn't mean for it come across like that. We all are sharing opinions, and opinions evolve with time and help from wise old forumers like ob1, pob, blake etc who we both knew, and talking about things between good friends (like yourself). I asked you this question sincerely, as if Schumacher in your opinion should be rated lower than Hamilton, then quite positively a very good, and in my opinion a more compelling case can be made to rate definitively rate Hamilton above Senna as well. As every thing that you could credit to Senna similar could be applied to Schumacher to a similar degree. Everything except teaming with Prost for two years.

 

Strange idea.

 

Ahem, Honda had a history of doing shady things, ask Rosberg Snr, Mansell etc. Or, do you think Berger was better than Prost, as Berger qualified closer to Senna i think than Prost did 

 

Or history shows that some drivers losing in a Honda powered car loved to blame it on the alien asians. Actually it's very easy to believe Berger a better qualifier than Prost, and the total reverse on race day. That was very easy to spot if you followed F1 at that time.

[l2k2]

So much bashing in this thread, what a surprise.

 

To me it seems that the model is far too simple: assuming that the driver is equally good from his first GP to his last is unreasonable (for example most rookies make rookie mistakes in their first years), and the model seems to penalize one for their team-mate's success. I think this is because of the car goodness estimate is a bit questionable (however, this is much harder to say without having the complete dataset).

 

To me, the model seems like a complicated version of: driver B better than A, and C better than B, thus C better than A. As we have seen in one funny topic (which I couldn't find for now), this does not really work in real life.

 

PS. For the Schumacher bashers: if I recall correctly he is the latest (and most likely the last) driver to win with a H-pattern manual gearbox, at Spa, with some rain in the middle, so most likely he can not drive with a stick...

[garagetinkerer]

Senna'a reliability in 1992 was woeful. Brundle was as fast as Senna at times in 1992, showing that the Benetton was much faster than some give it credit for. I have underlined my case as to why I think Berger and Ellio were strong teammates numerous times on this board (Berger in this very thread. Senna and Schumi reliability in 1993 was fairly even, maybe Schumi had 1 more mechanical failure if memory serves me correctly.

 

Senna's pole conversation is distorted, as the Lotus cars he drove were as strong in race trim as qualifying (bit like the Mercedes in 2013), plus the later Williams poles which were rendered meaningless for similar reasons. I am not saying Schumi never won a race whilst not having the best car (he did multiple times), nor am I dismissing Rubens as a average driver (again I have defined my opinion of Rubens in this thread, he was decent but not as good as Berger was in 1990-1992)

The question was, do you think Berger was faster than Prost, as he was closer to Senna than was Prost. By the way, the very same Berger when he was replacing Schumacher at Benetton, was found to be not at all as fast by Brawn. Particular observations are there from Brawn on this in the book by C Hilton. I was saying that Senna won a disproportionately high number of his race wins (29 out of 43, almost two thirds) from pole, and even most biased of the pundits will agree that it is a very good indicator of the quality of cars he won in.

[sennafan24]

The question was, do you think Berger was faster than Prost, as he was closer to Senna than was Prost. 

Look at the common opponent in Mansell on the subject of qualifying, and you will find your answer.

[garagetinkerer]

The Beneton of 1994 was better at least for part of the season, Adrian Newey would be the first to admit that. And that's leaving aside the whole legailty business.

 

No.

 

Ahem, and Senna had  a lot more mechanical issues and resultant retirements that season. Really, this time.
 

Strange idea.

 

Or history shows that some drivers losing in a Honda powered car loved to blame it on the alien asians. Actually it's very easy to believe Berger a better qualifier than Prost, and the total reverse on race day. That was very easy to spot if you followed F1 at that time.

While Adrian Newey will say what he will (do you have a quote?), Messrs Todt, Brawn and co thought otherwise and we have had soundbytes from them over the years.

 

Not really strange, you didn't highlight "except Prost" bit. Even though it was a bit of an uneven fight. If it were not for the fact that Honda left Williams because Williams didn't give priority to Piquet Snr. over Mansell, or Rosberg being hung out to dry as he was leaving the team, then your argument about excuses will have remit. Why would Prost name someone from Honda, whom anyone could actually contact and verify if Prost was lying. Now Dennis, he has history of being partisan and less than equal. I wouldn't trust Dennis. By the way, since i have you, do you think Alonso had a fair shot at title in '07, when Dennis was claiming "... we were racing Alonso..." I'm not saying it was definitive, but don't you have your doubts? I mean DC wasn't driving a Honda powered McLaren (you forgot him didn't you? ), he would tell you that Hakkinen and Raikkonen were favoured over him. Well, you have to go in a round about fashion to get him to learn as much. He will not give you a direct answer, for whatever reasons.

[sennafan24]

Most drivers with a axe to grind say the other driver was favored

 

- Fischi at Renault 

 

- Herbert at Benetton 

 

- Rubens at Ferrari

 

- Mansell at Ferrari

 

I do not get why Prost, D.C and Alonso's complaints are accepted as truth, yet Senna's complaints in 1988 and others drivers complaints are dismissed.

[Currahee]

A very interesting project.

 

Clearly some anomalous results (Hunt, Frentzen, Prost, Senna to name just four) but at least it placed the correct driver at number 1.

 

The article comments regarding his absolute dominance in 63-65 but consider these additional facts about his career.

 

In addition to his 25 wins from 72 starts in F1 Championship GPs he won a further 19 non championship F1 races.

 

He scored 100% of possible championship points in 1963 and 1965 (both records)

 

He led 71.43% of all laps the 1963 champinship (a record)

 

He is the only driver to have won the F1 Driver's Championship and Indy 500 in the same year.

 

He won the Tasman Series in 1965, '67 & '68 with 12 wins and 7 seconds in 29 starts with 6 retirements.

 

BTCC Champion 1964 (and 3rd in F1 Driver's World Championship)

 

On the 1966 RAC Rally (equivalent then to a WRC event now but somewhat more gruelling) he had 3 fastest stage times, 7 second fastest, 4 thirds and 5 fourths before retiring on the 45th stage.  Compare that with Kimi's record or even Kubica's.

 

In 1963 he was beaten into second place at the Nubrurgring by John Surtees.  The Climax V8 in the back of Jim's Lotus 25 was on 7 cylinders for most of the race!

 

And finally, in what was possibly his greatest drive at Monza in '67, he pitted from the lead early in the race and lost a lap.  He then caught up the entire field overtaking most cars twice and retook the lead only to finish 3rd when his car faltered on the last lap for lack of fuel.  He took a lap off the entire field AT MONZA, the track where drivers won by hundreds of a second.  And there were no chicanes in 1967.

 

Definitely number 1 in my eyes.

 

 

No argument from me.  

[garagetinkerer]

Look at the common opponent in Mansell on the subject of qualifying, and you will find your answer.

Man, seriously? You really think Berger was faster than Prost?

[sennafan24]

Man, seriously? You really think Berger was faster than Prost?

In qualifying? About equal

 

Both went 9-9 with Mansell in qualifying for the record.

 

In race trim, which matters more? No

Edited by sennafan24, 22 July 2014 - 17:28.

[as65p]

While Adrian Newey will say what he will (do you have a quote?), Messrs Todt, Brawn and co thought otherwise and we have had soundbytes from them over the years.

 

Not really strange, you didn't highlight "except Prost" bit. Even though it was a bit of an uneven fight. If it were not for the fact that Honda left Williams because Williams didn't give priority to Piquet Snr. over Mansell, or Rosberg being hung out to dry as he was leaving the team, then your argument about excuses will have remit. Why would Prost name someone from Honda, whom anyone could actually contact and verify if Prost was lying. Now Dennis, he has history of being partisan and less than equal. I wouldn't trust Dennis. By the way, since i have you, do you think Alonso had a fair shot at title in '07, when Dennis was claiming "... we were racing Alonso..." I'm not saying it was definitive, but don't you have your doubts? I mean DC wasn't driving a Honda powered McLaren (you forgot him didn't you? ), he would tell you that Hakkinen and Raikkonen were favoured over him. Well, you have to go in a round about fashion to get him to learn as much. He will not give you a direct answer, for whatever reasons.

 

In a nutshell, you pick and chose whom to believe and whom not. Okay.

 

To Prost vs. Senna, strictly speaking it might have been un-even, but at the same time I struggle to find a battle that was more even. Name any of your choice and I will tell you what was not fair about it. There is always something.

 

If you dig hard enough, you'll always find arguments, explanations, excuses why the loser lost in each particular battle. I dare say no title in F1 was won without unfair advantages. "Fair" is a <cough> fairytale concept in fans minds. Ask Mansell, whom you appear to trust re: Honda, how fair he found the 1990 battle with Prost, then ask the latter if he agrees. .

 

Alonso had a hard time at Mclaren, team wise harder than anywhere else he has driven before or since. That's how I would call it. Despite that he came close enough, put up a good fight. Can't really ask for much more. In the end he couldn't make the team work for him and that was that. Same with DC by the way, but in his case what did he expect after giving up two wins? That's the surest way to convince your boss that you're 2nd-rate.

[garagetinkerer]

Most drivers with a axe to grind say the other driver was favored

 

- Fischi at Renault 

 

- Herbert at Benetton 

 

- Rubens at Ferrari

 

- Mansell at Ferrari

 

I do not get why Prost, D.C and Alonso's complaints are accepted as truth, yet Senna's complaints in 1988 and others drivers complaints are dismissed.

You're right about some of them...

 

Prost's arguments is not accepted as truth by default. He mentioned by name someone from Honda, who themselves have a history of doing things like this. The article i posted (which you don't believe) is from a British daily at the time, which mentions Dennis admitting differences, in what were supposed to be identically specified engines. You keep quoting Dennis from now, but never address the press conference in '89 before French GP and what Dennis had to say. Pretty sure you will also tell us that merely 5 engineers (Prost said 4 in that sky legends video iirc) compared to 20 on the other car was merely an optical illusion. We all know who McLaren and Hamilton were racing that day in China in '07, when they should have concentrated on scoring points, but may be you know better. Kovaleinen was almost always fuelled heavy in both '08 and '09, do you think that was a lie too by Kovaleinen? Or, do you think fuelling heavy was a better strategy, in which case you should question Dennis as Hamilton was almost always lighter. Dennis has a history, and you're ignoring it, may be because it is inconvenient, and certainly doesn't cast a favourable light on some of the teammate battles in McLaren cars over the year.

[sennafan24]

You're right about some of them...

 

Prost's arguments is not accepted as truth by default. He mentioned by name someone from Honda, who themselves have a history of doing things like this. The article i posted (which you don't believe) is from a British daily at the time, which mentions Dennis admitting differences, in what were supposed to be identically specified engines. You keep quoting Dennis from now, but never address the press conference in '89 before French GP and what Dennis had to say. 

I did address the conference, I want to see direct quotes or video evidence. Where are people coming out and disputing what Dennis recently as well?

I am not saying there were never differences in engines, but I I dispute foul play, and that Prost suffered (Senna had more engine failures in 1989 which cost him the title)

 

Senna (like Schumacher) had a rough time with the British press, so I am not surprised that it came from England. Do you accept the British press in the late 90's saying that Ferrari were favoring Schumi over Irvine?

Edited by sennafan24, 22 July 2014 - 18:02.

[garagetinkerer]

In a nutshell, you pick and chose whom to believe and whom not. Okay.

 

To Prost vs. Senna, strictly speaking it might have been un-even, but at the same time I struggle to find a battle that was more even. Name any of your choice and I will tell you what was not fair about it. There is always something.

 

If you dig hard enough, you'll always find arguments, explanations, excuses why the loser lost in each particular battle. I dare say no title in F1 was won without unfair advantages. "Fair" is a <cough> fairytale concept in fans minds. Ask Mansell, whom you appear to trust re: Honda, how fair he found the 1990 battle with Prost, then ask the latter if he agrees.

 

Alonso had a hard time at Mclaren, team wise harder than anywhere else he has driven before or since. That's how I would call it. Despite that he came close enough, put up a good fight. Can't really ask for much more. In the end he couldn't make the team work for him and that was that. Same with DC by the way, but in his case what did he expect after giving up two wins? That's the surest way to convince your boss that you're 2nd-rate.

Not really. I know Williams wasn't the same force as they were in '93 because of changes in regulations, but as a car, some mechanics and others from Benetton suggested that Williams was better. I have never read/ heard anything said by Newey about if Benetton were better, so i asked you for reference. In which case, i would revise my opinion appropriately.

 

Some battles are rather lopsided. A little off-balance is easier to stomach as it is usually the norm, well to me at the least. However few of the teammate battles were anything but a battle. Engines could easily skew performance in the same team and that was the point. Also, let us say that it is not that i trust Mansell (man can whinge, no?), but more that i don't trust Honda of that time-frame. It is also common knowledge that Piquet Snr. (also Senna, recently his contract with Lotus was made public, and so were one or two of Piquet's) had usually a contract which denotes them to be number 1 in the team. Then there was the matter of Honda sticking one to Rosberg Snr. as well. Speaking of Ferrari and Prost and Mansell. Prost is on record in the legends video suggesting that Mansell was mostly away, for lack of a better expression, golfing about than attend briefings. I don't quite know what to think on that, as it is the first i have ever heard of Ferrari favouring Prost (may be i read and i don't remember now...). I'll readily admit my ignorance on the matter and I'm slightly ashamed for it (but "you live, you learn" or so, ), and if you have something from Mansell, do share.

 

DC mentions that he should have taken those wins, but that he quite trusted the team he worked for Big mistake!

[garagetinkerer]

I did address the conference, I want to see direct quotes or video evidence. Where are people coming out and disputing what Dennis recently as well?

I am not saying there were never differences in engines, but I I dispute foul play, and that Prost suffered (Senna had more engine failures in 1989 which cost him the title)

 

Senna (like Schumacher) had a rough time with the British press, so I am not surprised that it came from England. Do you accept the British press in the late 90's saying that Ferrari were favoring Schumi over Irvine?

So British press speaking against a British team is the same as British press speaking against a German driving for an Italian team who they thought/ felt robbed Hill and tried again in '97?

 

So you didn't comment at all on the incident where Prost had merely 1/4th the engineers working for him in comparison to his teammate from that year? Do you think that was "equality" or "fair." Do you not think it shows which way the team was leaning when it comes to the drivers?

 

note: By the way, i've been hunting for it... but newspapers from that time are hard to dig. I will admit that i was lucky to find that article excerpt in The Age.

 

note 2: Ferrari always had a contract where a driver trailing will help the leading driver. It is the same contract which Raikkonen and Massa had, so did Massa and Alonso and now Alonso and Raikkonen. Teams may favour the leading driver, and it is not something unbelievable as they want to win races and championships. However, Prost and Senna was a lot different than Schumacher and Irvine, or do you think it wasn't? Irvine was good, but he wasn't Prost, Schumacher and Senna good. Similarly Alonso and Hamilton at McLaren was also different.

Edited by garagetinkerer, 22 July 2014 - 18:14.

[sennafan24]

So British press speaking against a British team is the same as British press speaking against a German who they thought/ felt robbed Hill and tried again in '97?

 

So you didn't comment at all on the incident where Prost had merely 1/4th the engineers working for him in comparison to his teammate from that year? Do you think that was "equality" or "fair." Do you not think it shows which way the team was leaning when it comes to the drivers?

The British press had a good relationship with Prost (Nigel Roebuck), they had strained relationship with Senna/Dennis. 

 

No, that was not fair. However, what was the end result of that weekend?

 

Prost 1st

 

Senna DNF

 

So it backfired anyway, and who knows maybe Senna's car needed more attention. By the race result, it would seem that would be the case.

[garagetinkerer]

So much bashing in this thread, what a surprise.

 

To me it seems that the model is far too simple: assuming that the driver is equally good from his first GP to his last is unreasonable (for example most rookies make rookie mistakes in their first years), and the model seems to penalize one for their team-mate's success. I think this is because of the car goodness estimate is a bit questionable (however, this is much harder to say without having the complete dataset).

 

To me, the model seems like a complicated version of: driver B better than A, and C better than B, thus C better than A. As we have seen in one funny topic (which I couldn't find for now), this does not really work in real life.

 

PS. For the Schumacher bashers: if I recall correctly he is the latest (and most likely the last) driver to win with a H-pattern manual gearbox, at Spa, with some rain in the middle, so most likely he can not drive with a stick...

Schumacher possibly also has the dubious distinction of having most rule changes by FIA specifically to slow a driver/ team combine, which was most of early 2000's. i think that is quite flattering.

Edited by garagetinkerer, 22 July 2014 - 18:21.

[garagetinkerer]

The British press had a good relationship with Prost (Nigel Roebuck), they had strained relationship with Senna/Dennis. 

 

No, that was not fair. However, what was the end result of that weekend?

 

Prost 1st

 

Senna DNF

 

So it backfired anyway, and who knows maybe Senna's car needed more attention. By the race result, it would seem that would be the case.

Ulp... words fail me!

 

About that GP, i actually loved how Prost gave away that trophy. You could easily picture Dennis who's quite a^@!-retentive, must look at trophy cabinet at MTC every now and then, and sigh.

[as65p]

Not really. I know Williams wasn't the same force as they were in '93 because of changes in regulations, but as a car, some mechanics and others from Benetton suggested that Williams was better. I have never read/ heard anything said by Newey about if Benetton were better, so i asked you for reference. In which case, i would revise my opinion appropriately.

 

Some battles are rather lopsided. A little off-balance is easier to stomach as it is usually the norm, well to me at the least. However few of the teammate battles were anything but a battle. Engines could easily skew performance in the same team and that was the point. Also, let us say that it is not that i trust Mansell (man can whinge, no?), but more that i don't trust Honda of that time-frame. It is also common knowledge that Piquet Snr. (also Senna, recently his contract with Lotus was made public, and so were one or two of Piquet's) had usually a contract which denotes them to be number 1 in the team. Then there was the matter of Honda sticking one to Rosberg Snr. as well. Speaking of Ferrari and Prost and Mansell. Prost is on record in the legends video suggesting that Mansell was mostly away, for lack of a better expression, golfing about than attend briefings. I don't quite know what to think on that, as it is the first i have ever heard of Ferrari favouring Prost (may be i read and i don't remember now...). I'll readily admit my ignorance on the matter and I'm slightly ashamed for it (but "you live, you learn" or so, ), and if you have something from Mansell, do share.

 

DC mentions that he should have taken those wins, but that he quite trusted the team he worked for Big mistake!

 

He's a few bits from Newey about the early FW16 Senna drove:

 

"To be honest we made a bloody awful cock-up. The rear-end grip problem was purely a setup problem. We were learning about springs and dampers all over again after concentrating on active suspension for two years, whereas most people had been away for just one. We also had a rather silly aerodynamic problem—basically the front wing was too low—but that was raised for Imola, by which time we were looking in pretty good shape.

 

From a german article: „Ich hatte mich bei der Aerodynamik des Autos verrechnet“, sagte Newey dem Fachmagazin „auto, motor und sport“: „Das Fenster an Bodenfreiheiten, in dem das Auto funktionierte, war zu klein.“

 

Roughtrans: "I had miscalculated the aerodynamics, the rideheight window in which the car worked was too narrow.

 

Don't tell me a car described that way by it's creator was better than the Benetton that won 6 of the first 7 races.

 

Then there's the words of no other than Irvine . No perfect witness, admittedly, but in this case not really under suspicion to talk up Senna, only a few months after "the punch". I can't find the quote on the net, so bear with me, but I remember that he described it as a miracle how Senna could stay with Schumacher in Brazil '94, the differences in grip being enormous between the two cars.

[sennafan24]

Ulp... words fail me!

 

About that GP, i actually loved how Prost gave away that trophy. You could easily picture Dennis who's quite a^@!-retentive, must look at trophy cabinet at MTC every now and then, and sigh.

It should be noted that Italy was the only track where the engine difference was questionable.Differences in Japan 1989 qualifying were down to how Prost set up the car for race trim.

[garagetinkerer]

He's a few bits from Newey about the early FW16 Senna drove:

 

"To be honest we made a bloody awful cock-up. The rear-end grip problem was purely a setup problem. We were learning about springs and dampers all over again after concentrating on active suspension for two years, whereas most people had been away for just one. We also had a rather silly aerodynamic problem—basically the front wing was too low—but that was raised for Imola, by which time we were looking in pretty good shape.

 

From a german article: „Ich hatte mich bei der Aerodynamik des Autos verrechnet“, sagte Newey dem Fachmagazin „auto, motor und sport“: „Das Fenster an Bodenfreiheiten, in dem das Auto funktionierte, war zu klein.“

 

Roughtrans: "I had miscalculated the aerodynamics, the rideheight window in which the car worked was too narrow.

 

Don't tell me a car described that way by it's creator was better than the Benetton that won 6 of the first 7 races.

 

Then there's the words of no other than Irvine . No perfect witness, admittedly, but in this case not really under suspicion to talk up Senna, only a few months after "the punch". I can't find the quote on the net, so bear with me, but I remember that he described it as a miracle how Senna could stay with Schumacher in Brazil '94, the differences in grip being enormous between the two cars.

Thanks for quotes from Newey. Though you have to agree, while he does mention the "bloody awful cock-up", he doesn't exactly said we were worse than Benetton, who were running Ford Zetec engines versus the Renault in Williams. The horse power difference alone was considerable between the two cars. Imola was the 4th race of the season, no? Also, i'll agree that 6 race wins out of the first 7 definitely stack odds in favour of Benetton, but then in quotes provided by you (so i'm hoping you will agree with Newey) Newey reckoned they were quite upto snuff by Imola. So that's like 3 races out of 7 where you could potentially argue that Benetton had a car advantage, and that is when one is completely/ blindly ignoring what engines were in the back of respective cars.

 

 

It should be noted that Italy was the only track where the engine difference was questionable.Differences in Japan 1989 qualifying were down to how Prost set up the car for race trim.

You keep saying that. Prost confirmed that he found mappings he requested from Honda which weren't there before or after the French GP, which was his home GP, and a couple of others. Whereas, at most others, it was miraculously just plain not there. This was happening in '88. In '89, you could believe Dennis all you want, but that is the same man who claims equality was offered to both drivers and yet he posted 5 men to aid Prost against 20 for Senna. I know enough to not trust Dennis on some matters, and "driver equality" is one of them.

[sennafan24]

 

You keep saying that. Prost confirmed that he found mappings he requested from Honda which weren't there before or after the French GP, which was his home GP, and a couple of others. Whereas, at most others, it was miraculously just plain not there. This was happening in '88. In '89, you could believe Dennis all you want, but that is the same man who claims equality was offered to both drivers and yet he posted 5 men to aid Prost against 20 for Senna. I know enough to not trust Dennis on some matters, and "driver equality" is one of them.

That proves nothing. The timing could be a coincidence, if it was not exclusive to France as you underline. It is not like when they got to Brazil, Senna blew Prost away by a massive margin. So the home track argument is limited. You fail to account that Senna made similar accusations towards McLaren, and keep on arguing based on assumptions and unconfirmed allegations (Prost just said that a Honda bigwig confirmed that Senna had better relations with Honda, and that he could not be sure with engines).

 

You blindly accept that article at face value, yet do not account for the fact that no one from Honda, Prost or McLaren have challenged Dennis's account of events since he stated it recently. The article does not prove anything as there is not video to see what Dennis actually said and the context in which he said it. No source is cited, and given Senna and Dennis frosty relationship with the English press, it is highly questionable to say the least.

 

I will believe Dennis, Rameriz and others. There could be numerous reasons why Senna had more engineers helping him at Italy 1989, one of which I offered above. Again you fail to account for a session in 1988 where Prost got a extra part from McLaren, and Senna felt hard done by. You just selective state the instant where Prost was hard done by. I actually believe Prost when he says that he could not be sure that stuff was going on with engines.  I do not think Prost or Senna are liars, just very suspicious and paranoid. Notice how I do not believe Senna with his allegations in 1988 about McLaren favoring Prost. I am not arguing from one side of the argument here.

 

 

I have repeatedly addressed every point you have brought up, so nothing else needs to be said. It is a tiresome argument going round in circles

Edited by sennafan24, 22 July 2014 - 20:53.

[garagetinkerer]

That proves nothing. The timing could be a coincidence, if it was not exclusive to France as you underline. It is not like when they got to Brazil, Senna blew Prost away by a massive margin. So the home track argument is limited. You fail to account that Senna made similar accusations towards McLaren, and keep on arguing based on assumptions and unconfirmed allegations (Prost just said that a Honda bigwig confirmed that Senna had better relations with Honda, and that he could not be sure with engines).

 

You blindly accept that article at face value, yet do not account for the fact that no one from Honda, Prost or McLaren have challenged Dennis's account of events since he stated it recently. The article does not prove anything as there is not video to see what Dennis actually said and the context in which he said it. No source is cited, and given Senna and Dennis frosty relationship with the English press, it is highly questionable to say the least.

 

I will believe Dennis, Rameriz and others. There could be numerous reasons why Senna had more engineers helping him at Italy 1989, one of which I offered above. Again you fail to account for a session in 1988 where Prost got a extra part from McLaren, and Senna felt hard done by. You just selective state the instant where Prost was hard done by. I actually believe Prost when he says that he could not be sure that stuff was going on with engines.  I do not think Prost or Senna are liars, just very suspicious and paranoid. Notice how I do not believe Senna with his allegations in 1988 about McLaren favoring Prost. I am not arguing from one side of the argument here.

 

 

I have repeatedly addressed every point you have brought up, so nothing else needs to be said. It is a tiresome argument going round in circles

I'm not blindly trusting the article. Honda has favoured drivers before within a team, and that is you ignoring such inconvenient facts. No, Prost didn't just say that a Honda bigwig confirmed that Senna had better relations with Honda. He also said Kawamoto confirmed that Senna was favoured by "a new breed' of engineers in Honda who think of him more as a Samurai. He also goes onto say that he spoke to Kawamoto to ensure that it wasn't so for '89 and things were more even. Furthermore, Prost says that he couldn't trust them anymore because of stuff like "special for Ayrton" written on top of engines. Do you think of any good reason why they would do so? A prank? Possibly. but then Roebuck and Prost aren't alone in suspecting something was afoot at McLaren, and with Honda.

 

Prost recounts having that engine mappings or such that he requested, only on 2-3 odd occasions over a year. Now If you think it is representative of "fair" options provided, i quite sincerely don't know what to say.

 

I'm not selectively stating incidents, but i can't help if you feel like it. Speaking of incidents about parts, you do agree that some parts are only available at times for 1 driver? So who do you blame for this? McLaren, Prost, or Senna? If it were only incidents like that, i'd be a grade A fool to argue that Prost/ Senna was treated unfairly. I just don't trust Dennis in such matters as equality for drivers. He has not exactly helped matters when it comes to driver equality over the years. Especially so as Prost himself claims that he felt the team move towards him when he faced Lauda. Does that make sense? I personally don't mind if he favoured one over the other, it is just when he says that we provide equality to our drivers, and it is untrue based on heaps of evidence. Or do you disagree?

 

Fine, let us agree to disagree on this I'm reading up on it looking for more dirt. If i find something which should take time, given the period it is from, i'll email you. By the way, have you read that book by Malcolm Folley on these two?

[sennafan24]

No, Prost didn't just say that a Honda bigwig confirmed that Senna had better relations with Honda. He also said Kawamoto confirmed that Senna was favoured by "a new breed' of engineers in Honda who think of him more as a Samurai. 

 

Same thing really

 

Plus it should come as no shock Senna was chummy with Honda engineers, he had a relationship with Honda from his Lotus days, so he was bound to have a better relationship with the engineers. Same logic applies to the McLaren staff and Prost. Dennis acknowledged that Prost had concerns about Honda from the start, due to past accusations which is why he set up the two engine coin toss

 

The "special for Ayrton" could be a prank, or it could be that was the engine he drew during the coin toss, Even Prost says that the engines could have identical, he just suspected foul play. On Nigel Roebuck, he said that he saw things more from Prost's side due to being close with him. With that in mind, Roebuck admitted on SKY recently that the Balleste did indeed favor Prost over Senna, and said there was some evidence to prove this (he did not specify what evidence). I am not going to comment on Honda's past allegations, I think Britophile made a convincing argument that there was foul play toward Keke Rosberg on here. But that has no bearing on Senna/Prost, as the evidence outside Italy 1989 does not signify foul play.

 

The biggest hole in this conspiracy, is that Senna had more engine failures, probably due to him getting the rough end of the coin toss. Think about it, if Prost had more engine failures like Senna did, is it likely that Prost would making the same accusation? I think so. In the end by process of a coin toss, Honda favored Prost if anything, and gave him the 1989 title. But I am not going to scream conspiracy (I have not screamed conspiracy once this year with Lewis's luck either)

 

This is the last I am saying on the matter, and no I have not read Folley's book as I hace read bad things.

Edited by sennafan24, 22 July 2014 - 23:09.

[garagetinkerer]

Same thing really

 

Plus it should come as no shock Senna was chummy with Honda engineers, he had a relationship with Honda from his Lotus days, so he was bound to have a better relationship with the engineers. Same logic applies to the McLaren staff and Prost. Dennis acknowledged that Prost had concerns about Honda from the start, due to past accusations which is why he set up the two engine coin toss

 

The "special for Ayrton" could be a prank, or it could be that was the engine he drew during the coin toss, Even Prost says that the engines could have identical, he just suspected foul play. On Nigel Roebuck, he said that he saw things more from Prost's side due to being close with him. With that in mind, Roebuck admitted on SKY recently that the Balleste did indeed favor Prost over Senna, and said there was some evidence to prove this (he did not specify what evidence). I am not going to comment on Honda's past allegations, I think Britophile made a convincing argument that there was foul play toward Keke Rosberg on here. But that has no bearing on Senna/Prost as the evidence outside Italy 1989 does not signify foul play.

 

The biggest hole in this conspiracy, is that Senna had more engine failures, probably due to him getting the rough end of the coin toss. Think about it, if Prost had more engine failures like Senna did, is it likely that Prost would making the same accusation? I think so. In the end by process of a coin toss, Honda favored Prost if anything, and gave him the 1989 title. But I am not going to scream conspiracy (I have not screamed conspiracy once this year with Lewis's luck either)

 

This is the last I am saying on the matter as it is all a bit tedious, and no I have not read Folley's book for numerous reasons.

Do you mind sharing some of them over an email?

 

I'm not going to go into what you said except that bolded bit. Also, i'll make you a deal, i will not discuss Senna/ Prost with you ever... Seems like it is heating up, and i sincerely apologise if it and i stressed you out.

 

edit: i have always maintained that you're one level-headed Hamilton fan

 

edit 2: Although XXXXX What did you think? I was saying Miley

Edited by garagetinkerer, 22 July 2014 - 23:14.

[sennafan24]

 

 

edit: i have always maintained that you're one level-headed Hamilton fan

Cheers, and I am not annoyed, sorry if my tone made you think that 

 

Just think we best leave it, as we are going round in circles about a subject that neither of us can prove one way or another. I have my beliefs, you have yours, no big deal.

 

Folley was granted full access to Prost from what I understand, and I have been told he was quite taken with that (which is understandable given Prost is an all-time great). It is meant to be written with very Pro-Prost stance. Now, I am not going to dismiss it due to that (the unextended version of SENNA does Prost a disservice, which is why I am glad I own the BLU Ray with the extended version), so there is a lot of Pro-Senna stuff out there as well.

 

The reason I will not read it is because I already know the arguments from both sides, and I have a firm opinion. I doubt any new information will be in it otherwise I would already know about it.

Edited by sennafan24, 22 July 2014 - 23:21.

[garagetinkerer]

Cheers, and I am not annoyed, sorry if my tone made you think that 

 

Just think we best leave it, as we are going round in circles about a subject that neither of us can prove one way or another. I have my beliefs, you have yours, no big deal.

 

Folley was granted full access to Prost from what I understand, and I have been told he was quite taken with that (which is understandable given Prost is an all-time great). It is meant to be written with very Pro-Prost stance. Now, I am not going to dismiss it due to that (the unextended version of SENNA does Prost a disservice, which is why I am glad I own the BLU Ray with the extended version), so there is a lot of Pro-Senna stuff out there as well.

 

The reason I will not read it is because I already know the arguments from both sides, and I have a firm opinion. I doubt any new information will be in it otherwise I would already know about it.

I actually read sometime ago, that the rivalry between Prost and Senna started at a karting track Have you heard that one? Is that a hoax?

 

No response to text bolded in white? So do we have a new muse of sorts?

Edited by garagetinkerer, 23 July 2014 - 03:05.

[sopa]

Sennafan, I don't get why do you rate Berger so highly especially in 1990-1992. Anything to do with Senna? Yet you don't rate him highly for his Ferrari period against Alesi. When Berger joined Alesi as team-mates in 1993, their comparative performance average till 1997 was pretty similar. On average it was Alesi marginally on top. What is the exact point or argument with which you claim that "Berger was past his prime"? I could consider it since the Benetton season 1996, but before that? 

 

I don't see much difference in Berger in McLaren and Ferrari. On average Senna was significantly better than Berger. Obviously Alesi by a much smaller margin, getting outraced every now and then, and outqualified pretty often.

 

I think had Berger been Schumacher's team-mate, he would have got a similar beating as he did against Senna. After all, around 1995 it was already said Schumacher was by far the best driver on the grid. It was said already in 1994 after Senna's death. In both seasons Berger was in F1.

 

I do feel here is some slight revisionism going on - to make Senna look better than Schumacher, all of his team-mates are hyped to a higher level as well and arguably peaking alongside Senna as team-mates! Subsequently Schumacher's team-mates are pushed to a lower level.

 

Barrichello? In my view similar to Berger. He was rated very highly, when he was in the Stewart-Ford. What he did there, especially in 1999, were not too dissimilar to what Berger did in late 1980s in Ferraris. Many thought Barrichello could give Schumacher a run for his money in Ferrari after they became team-mates, didn't happen though. Same when Berger joined Senna, it was thought maybe he could give a run for Senna's money.

Edited by sopa, 23 July 2014 - 08:22.

[Collombin]

I actually read sometime ago, that the rivalry between Prost and Senna started at a karting track Have you heard that one? Is that a hoax?

That's not the worst thing said about the new Nurgburgring at the time.

[MSC98]

The fact that and ancient Berger was winning races and scoring poles in 1996/1997 speaks volumes.

Races? Poles? One win and one pole are plural?

Ancient Berger was 37 in 1996, 38 in 1997.

 

To repeat myself from another post.

However, in case of another driver (aged 28,29,31), when he won his three world championships, most of his nearest competitors were even older than those two aging drives were in 1995. A.P. (33,35,36), N.M. (35,37,38), N.P. (36,38,39), R.P. (34,36,37)

 

 

I completely agree. The era I personally found to be weakest was the late 90's/early 00's. It wasn't until the mid 00's that we finally found someone who could challenge Schumachers dominance in Alonso and then Hamilton and then Vettel. The overrating of the late 90's/early 00's is probably why we have ridiculous positions for people like Frentzen. The 80's as a whole need a bump so we get Mansell, Piquet, Prost and Senna etc in respectable positions and then I would say the model is pretty decent overall.

Lets take a small view on that weak grid.

Lets take one random year from dark ages between 1994-2005. Let it be 2003. If you want any other year, feel free to say.

Champions (current and future) - Schumacher, Alonso, Raikkonen, Button, Villeneuve

Race winners (current and future) - Schumacher, Alonso, Raikkonen, Button, Villeneuve, Rubens, DC, Montoya, Ralf, Trulli, Frentzen, Massa, Fisichella, Webber, Panis.

 

Lets take a closer look at each of that drivers.

Schumacher - 7x champion - all time great

Alonso - 2x champion - who knows what future brings, still not there, but possible all time great

Kimi - 1x champion - great talent, always (almost) on high level

Button - 1x champion - well, he did very well against Hamilton (considered to be the fastest driver today), that says enough

Jacques - 1x champion - quite impressive in his first two years, then made an ill fated move to BAR that ultimately ruined his career and reputation

 

Rubens - on his days he was a very fast driver, but unfortunately for him, those days didn't come quite often

DC - not top of the crop, but certainly had speed, however he lacked consistency. 

Montoya - great God-given talent that lacked discipline

RS - certain driver named Schumacher (but not Michael), managed to be more than a match for both Montoya and Trulli. Yet he is considered to be trash.

Trulli - "Trulli train" was more than a match for Alonso, especially in 2004, Shame he was ousted from Renault for 2005

Frentzen - a bit erratic in 1997 when he had great equipment, but in 1999 he made a challenge for the title in a god damned Jordan

Massa - trounced by MSC and Alonso, a bit closer to Kimi's level. Shame he didn't take that 2008 championship, and also shame for that Hungaroring accident.

Webber - had his big chance in 2010, but missed it out, otherwise capable for some stunning performances, but also to often average considering available machinery in his final years.

Fisichella - good driver, had his moments, but when he had chance to shine he was trounced

Panis - never in a good car, but still had some great performances

 

Weak field? Yeah, sure.

If necessary,  we can also look at one year from late 90s.

 

In 7 years in F1, Lewis holds a 6-1 record in years beating teammates. That record includes 2 former WDC's in Button x2 and Alonso. If we account for Lewis blowing it in 2010, you also have to account for Schumi blowing it in 1997 if you want to play that game.

Lewis is on pure pace one of the fastest in history of this sport. However, he is to inconsistent. Just take a closer look at his career.

 

His rookie season was amazing, and so far the best in his career. Quite telling, isn't it?

Yes, in second season he won his first title, but it was a messy season (not just his), all up and down during the season. Canada?

In 2009 he was usually good, especially when McLaren improved in second part of the season.

In 2010 he binned his championship with two avoidable incidents which happened immediately after the race in which he gained momentum and championship lead. After that he simply stopped.

Maybe it is best not to talk about 2011?

2012 was his second best year in which McLaren's blunders cost him a title shot. His driving was quite often exceptional.

Considering he changed teams and was adapting to new environment, he did very well.

 

Better than Schumacher? No.

Close to Schumacher? Yes.

[Sin]

this was great when I saw Frentzen rated higher than Senna, ( but hey I loved this just because I love Frentzen <3), this was bad when I read Alonso rated higher than Vettel and Schumacher...

Edited by Sin, 23 July 2014 - 07:46.

[sopa]

One more comment about the "weak era".

 

The arguments remind me of Valentino Rossi and Sebastien Loeb. They also won a lot in an arguable "weak era". Still they are all-time greats, among the elite. I don't see, why we should push Schumacher down for that. Had there been a "peak" era, he would have faced more competition and maybe we would not have been sure who the best driver was out there.

 

Rossi raced against the likes of Biaggi and Gibernau. It is often said a "strong era" arrived, when the likes of Pedrosa, Stoner and Lorenzo joined. By then Rossi had already done most of his winning.

 

Loeb in WRC. By far the most successful driver statistically, but in incredible fortunate circumstances compared to all other eras. Only a couple of manufacturers participating, most of the top drivers retiring and no exciting talent coming in (Hirvonen being Loeb's closest rival for some time), also a team (Citroen) built around Loeb.

 

Still doesn't take anything away from them. Rossi, Loeb and Schumacher were all absolute elite in their sports, even if they had it a bit easier in their time, which enabled to rack up greater statistics. But statistics or not, they were still great.

[sopa]

2. Drivers dying in other eras removes talent from those grids. How would Clark surviving have affected JYS record... But yes, he won lots more than anyone in that era... by beating the others.

 

 

That's actually a very good point. Fatalities and injuries took toll on the depth on the grid, in addition to the talent pool issue. Let's look further...

 

I was just thinking about something. 1960s is considered a strong period, late 1990s a weak period. But in both cases there was one driver, who was above others (Clark, Schumacher). Others? There are many differences - one of them being that being a "driver" included many other activities like racing in other series or building up your own team. This puts the likes of Brabham into a historically more appreciating light than the likes of Coulthard.

 

However, I am afraid we would get lost if we tried to compare the "talent pool" and "depth of the grid" of modern era and the early days of racing. Also there was an argument that almost anybody could afford racing back in the day... Well, "almost anybody" could go and race in karts these days as well. Does it mean in karting we see the true champions, because many people can afford it and the cream rises to the top?

 

There is another issue. I have read comments that nowadays karting isn't meritocratic either, because richer kids can afford more. Despite many having the possibility to race a kart, still wealthier people (kids) can hire better mechanics and buy better karts, hence they go on to win. This is something universal, be it today or in the 50s. If you had more money, you could buy better cars to go racing. Simple logic.

 

Let's again go and look at the 1960s. The vast majority of racing drivers were from Anglo-Saxon countries, especially UK. This tells me clearly that there wasn't "equal opportunity" everywhere. Motorsport hadn't developed in popularity in many regions. Maybe in Germany there was a Schumacher already back then, but there wasn't an opportunity or culture to go and support racing, talent didn't find the way to move up to F1.

 

Imagine if nowadays F1 was like what we had in the 60s, about 50% of racing driver from the UK and many other regions missing. We would have the likes of Davidson, Sam Bird and James Calado in F1. Not bad drivers, but does it mean there is more depth on the grid? I don't think so.

Edited by sopa, 23 July 2014 - 08:21.

[PlatenGlass]

However, I am afraid we would get lost if we tried to compare the "talent pool" and "depth of the grid" of modern era and the early days of racing. Also there was an argument that almost anybody could afford racing back in the day... Well, "almost anybody" could go and race in karts these days as well. Does it mean in karting we see the true champions, because many people can afford it and the cream rises to the top?
 
There is another issue. I have read comments that nowadays karting isn't meritocratic either, because richer kids can afford more. Despite many having the possibility to race a kart, still wealthier people (kids) can hire better mechanics and buy better karts, hence they go on to win. This is something universal, be it today or in the 50s. If you had more money, you could buy better cars to go racing. Simple logic.
 
Let's again go and look at the 1960s. The vast majority of racing drivers were from Anglo-Saxon countries, especially UK. This tells me clearly that there wasn't "equal opportunity" everywhere. Motorsport hadn't developed in popularity in many regions. Maybe in Germany there was a Schumacher already back then, but there wasn't an opportunity or culture to go and support racing, talent didn't find the way to move up to F1.
 
Imagine if nowadays F1 was like what we had in the 60s, about 50% of racing driver from the UK and many other regions missing. We would have the likes of Davidson, Sam Bird and James Calado in F1. Not bad drivers, but does it mean there is more depth on the grid? I don't think so.

I meant to make the point earlier about racing in the 60s being UK-centric, so with more countries now represented surely the standard must be higher, unless the standard from the UK alone in the 60s was enough to see off all of today's talent (unlikely). But I also think the talent pool in the UK is wider today than in the 60s, which could be used to argue that drivers like Clark and Stewart would not only not be the best drivers today, but also not even the best British drivers. Well, given that we have two British world champions on the grid now, it doesn't necessarily mean they weren't still good, and size of the talent pool isn't absolutely everything. You still get outliers. If I go to a school with a 100 people and another with 1000, it might still be that the best sprinter amongst them is from the smaller school, for example.

But on opportunity today, it's clear that money and opportunity is very important. When Rosberg, the son of a world champion, and Hamilton, the guy who was being funded by McLaren because he went up to Ron Dennis, were team-mates in karting dreaming of being in F1, what a coincidence that they also happened to be the most talented karters among their peers, eh?

Also on the talent dip in the late 90s, maybe it did happen but you have to wonder why. In the 80s and 90s we had F3000 as the feeder series to F1 but not producing the top drivers you'd expect. People would win the championship and go on to do nothing in F1. People make the argument that often the best drivers were picked out of F3 but I don't buy that at all. It's hard enough for team owners to pick the best drivers in F1 when they're under their nose (look how surprised even Red Bull are at Ricciardo), so I doubt very much if they were always able to spot talent in lower Formulas which just as much suffer from the problem of good/bad teams disguising driver skill.

There is a school of thought (meaning that I remember reading it somewhere) that F3000 cars were very different in the style needed to drive them from F1. And this goes back to the question of whether F1 drivers really are the best racing drivers, or whether they're just the best at driving F1 cars. It's not as if F1 drivers can all walk into DTM, for example, and expect to be the best. I don't think this is necessarily the answer. You'd still expect some drivers to be able to be champion in F3000 and F1, but maybe being in the top teams made a massive difference and the best drivers didn't get into the best cars. It also doesn't necessarily matter if also drivers have the same chassis and engine. Team preparation still makes a massive difference.

[PlatenGlass]

When people talk about some of the things Fangio and Clark did, you have to also remember that it would be impossible for current F1 drivers to do that. It's just not feasible to go off and win the Indy 500 in the middle of the F1 season, for example. And when you talk about comeback drives, no-one can simply start going 2 seconds a lap faster (or however much) than the field. In fact if they do, it's just a dominant car. The fact is, drivers are too close to each other nowadays. If you're not consistently within about 0.3 seconds a lap or so of your team-mate, you're being hammered. So if someone was regularly a second or two faster than their team-mate, everyone would look at what their team-mate was doing, not the dominant driver. The way to impress nowadays is to be just a couple of tenths faster than your team-mate but consistently at every race. You can't just pull a lap on the field because you had a slow pitstop.

[sennafan24]

 

Races? Poles? One win and one pole are plural?

Ancient Berger was 37 in 1996, 38 in 1997.

 

Berger got 2 poles actually

 

Spa 1996

Austria 1997

 

Lewis is inconsistent, but it is harder to be consistent against the likes of Alonso, Button and Rosberg then it would be Herbert, Patrese, Irvine and Rubens.

 

The year you mention (2003) was a transition year, Alonso had not reached his prime yet, neither had Button. The likes of Frentzen, Panis and J.V were past it as well,. Kimi probably had the best year of his career (so I will give you that).

 

Prost and Mansell despite aging were near their peak in the years Senna won the title. Piquet was past it though. There was always a legit challenge for Senna

 

1988 - Prost as teammate 

 

1990 - Prost at Ferrari with a very strong car

 

1991 - Mansell in a faster Williams

 

Schumi had Mika/McLaren in 2000, which is why I consider it his best title. 1994 was also impressive, but other years?. 

 

1995 - Damon Hill having the worst year of his career (bar 1999)

 

2001 - Rubens as teammate, D.C at McLaren were his main rivals

 

2002 - Rubens was his only real contender

 

2004 - See above

 

You cannot compare the quality of the titles in my book. I have left 2003, as I am not sure what I think of that year.

Edited by sennafan24, 23 July 2014 - 13:08.

[sennafan24]

Sennafan, I don't get why do you rate Berger so highly especially in 1990-1992. 

Berger was very lazy at Ferrari as others have covered, he was not as lazy at McLaren according to most sources (he says he tried everything in his power do beat Ayrton, but just could not)

 

I would simply suggest you look at how well he did against Mansell as teammates in 1988, they tied in qualifying that year, and despite a points gap, when Berger finished he netted a race win, and 2 second places. Berger also beat Albereto in 1987, by quite a margin. His career before McLaren is highly underrated.

 

I would say by the late 80's only Senna, Prost and Mansell were better than him (Piquet had slowed down by that stage)

[sopa]

In late 1980s Berger indeed looked good, maybe those were his peak years. But as he often gets compared to Mansell here, I have to say something regarding the latter as well. Very entertaining driving style with lots of fans, but in my view got slightly overrated as a result. Similar image thing, which later happened to Montoya and also Raikkonen. Mansell also got outqualified by Patrese a lot in 1991, though he was slightly more consistent in race trim.

 

"Weak field" of late 1990s compared to late 1980s. Take Prost away and basically there is no difference. Mansell for me is not superior to Hakkinen and for the rest of the drivers we can easily find equivalents from the late 1990s if we made such cross-comparisons. So if you imagine Senna dominating a "Prostless" field, you can see Schumacher did pretty much the same later on.

 

You can think about 1990 in isolation. Senna and Prost the two best drivers that year, and it is basically a tough choice for the third best driver that year, with Berger, Mansell, Williams & Benetton drivers and Alesi all making a claim.

[ensign14]

 

Let's again go and look at the 1960s. The vast majority of racing drivers were from Anglo-Saxon countries, especially UK. This tells me clearly that there wasn't "equal opportunity" everywhere. Motorsport hadn't developed in popularity in many regions.

 

Probably more a statistical quirk.  It's bound to happen at some point that there will be a concentration of talent from one country.  It's not as if the route was cut off, many nations were represented in F1 in the sixties, and there were routes open everywhere. 

 

Also on the talent dip in the late 90s, maybe it did happen but you have to wonder why. In the 80s and 90s we had F3000 as the feeder series to F1 but not producing the top drivers you'd expect. People would win the championship and go on to do nothing in F1.

 

Formula 2 was like that as well.  After Arnoux in 1977, not a single F2 champ scored a Grand Prix win.  Four of them didn't even score points.

 

I can't believe F3ks handled so differently from F1 cars.  Not least because in the first couple of years a number of F3k cars were F1 cars...

 

If you're not consistently within about 0.3 seconds a lap or so of your team-mate, you're being hammered. So if someone was regularly a second or two faster than their team-mate, everyone would look at what their team-mate was doing, not the dominant driver. The way to impress nowadays is to be just a couple of tenths faster than your team-mate but consistently at every race. You can't just pull a lap on the field because you had a slow pitstop.

 

How much of that is due to the drivers being faster than the cars?  Put me and Hamilton on the M25 with the cars limited to 40mph and I'd fancy my chances.  If the car has a minimum lap-time that a great driver can hit using 75% of his talent, and a mediocre talent can hit it using 90%, then they will look pretty close.  Back in the sixties it wasn't uncommon for a driver to lap his team-mate - when they had several hundred BHP but no downforce or grip.

[sopa]

Probably more a statistical quirk.  It's bound to happen at some point that there will be a concentration of talent from one country.  It's not as if the route was cut off, many nations were represented in F1 in the sixties, and there were routes open everywhere. 

 

Possibly. But as with everything in life, you need to be at the right place at the right time. 

 

How "open" a route in certain countries is, depends on particular situations. For example there were a fair few Argentine drivers in 1950s, Fangio, Gonzalez, Mieres and even more. The route was open, because there were some favorable circumstances and contacts, which were lost afterwards. Was it the Fangio effect? Something else?

 

Likewise 1990s and Germany. Schumacher "opened a route" for Germans to get into F1. Suddenly there was more sponsorship support, more contacts and better opportunity to make it into F1 and ever since the 1990s we have consistently seen a fair amount of Germans in F1. And they have usually been at a good level too, not hopeless paydrivers.

[sopa]

How much of that is due to the drivers being faster than the cars?  Put me and Hamilton on the M25 with the cars limited to 40mph and I'd fancy my chances.  If the car has a minimum lap-time that a great driver can hit using 75% of his talent, and a mediocre talent can hit it using 90%, then they will look pretty close.  Back in the sixties it wasn't uncommon for a driver to lap his team-mate - when they had several hundred BHP but no downforce or grip.

 

In my view the main differentiator is professionalism in all aspects, including electronics and telemetry. Nowadays teams have simulators and can prepare and setup the cars so well that they are bound to perform pretty close to their ultimate potential anyway. Also drivers work extensively on simulator and have other professional training. Back then you had no electronics and telemetry to understand the car better and more was done based on gut feeling and experience.

 

If you took wings off modern cars to radically decrease the grip levels... well, initially there could be a pretty decent shock, but after some time teams and drivers will have figured out, how to go fast in this machinery and they'd be pretty close again.

[PlatenGlass]

How much of that is due to the drivers being faster than the cars?  Put me and Hamilton on the M25 with the cars limited to 40mph and I'd fancy my chances.  If the car has a minimum lap-time that a great driver can hit using 75% of his talent, and a mediocre talent can hit it using 90%, then they will look pretty close.  Back in the sixties it wasn't uncommon for a driver to lap his team-mate - when they had several hundred BHP but no downforce or grip.

There's probably something in this. I think the regulations could be designed to make drivers stand out more. But I also think that the gap between the best drivers and the rest of the field was probably greater in the past due to less strength in depth.

[ensign14]

 

If you took wings off modern cars to radically decrease the grip levels... well, initially there could be a pretty decent shock, but after some time teams and drivers will have figured out, how to go fast in this machinery and they'd be pretty close again.

 

They could ban front wings for safety reasons.  They cut tyres and can fly off in bits.  Then lower the nose, also for safety reasons.  That would make things interesting.

[ahw911]

2. Drivers dying in other eras removes talent from those grids. How would Clark surviving have affected JYS record... But yes, he won lots more than anyone in that era... by beating the others.

 

 

If Clark had gone to Brands on 7 Apr '68 to drive the F3L  then I think he would probably have won the next five WDC assuming he didn't retire.  That would have left JYS with 1973 only.

 

 

Edited by ahw911, 23 July 2014 - 15:34.

[garagetinkerer]

One more comment about the "weak era".

 

The arguments remind me of Valentino Rossi and Sebastien Loeb. They also won a lot in an arguable "weak era". Still they are all-time greats, among the elite. I don't see, why we should push Schumacher down for that. Had there been a "peak" era, he would have faced more competition and maybe we would not have been sure who the best driver was out there.

 

Rossi raced against the likes of Biaggi and Gibernau. It is often said a "strong era" arrived, when the likes of Pedrosa, Stoner and Lorenzo joined. By then Rossi had already done most of his winning.

 

Loeb in WRC. By far the most successful driver statistically, but in incredible fortunate circumstances compared to all other eras. Only a couple of manufacturers participating, most of the top drivers retiring and no exciting talent coming in (Hirvonen being Loeb's closest rival for some time), also a team (Citroen) built around Loeb.

 

Still doesn't take anything away from them. Rossi, Loeb and Schumacher were all absolute elite in their sports, even if they had it a bit easier in their time, which enabled to rack up greater statistics. But statistics or not, they were still great.

What people don't understand is how big Rossi is compared to other riders... He's 6 feet... now motorcycle drivers are like horse racing jockeys. The smaller and lighter you are, the better, and Rossi was not. Simoncelli was another Italian who was as tall as Rossi. That is something that you must consider. In comparison, just look at the size of Marquez who's only 5'6". Lorenzo, 5'7". Pedrosa 5'2".Stoner, 5'7". To be brutally honest, i never watched Moto GP much, as after turning down dates on one weekend, i had to go out on the other, and now i kick myself as to why i never watched Rossi in his prime race more.

 

WRC never got as much coverage in India for whatever reasons... i personally think they could easily get a fan following going if they start hosting a race around there. I wish i could comment on Loeb, but i will limit to say that i wish i could watch him race.

[garagetinkerer]

In late 1980s Berger indeed looked good, maybe those were his peak years. But as he often gets compared to Mansell here, I have to say something regarding the latter as well. Very entertaining driving style with lots of fans, but in my view got slightly overrated as a result. Similar image thing, which later happened to Montoya and also Raikkonen. Mansell also got outqualified by Patrese a lot in 1991, though he was slightly more consistent in race trim.

 

"Weak field" of late 1990s compared to late 1980s. Take Prost away and basically there is no difference. Mansell for me is not superior to Hakkinen and for the rest of the drivers we can easily find equivalents from the late 1990s if we made such cross-comparisons. So if you imagine Senna dominating a "Prostless" field, you can see Schumacher did pretty much the same later on.

 

You can think about 1990 in isolation. Senna and Prost the two best drivers that year, and it is basically a tough choice for the third best driver that year, with Berger, Mansell, Williams & Benetton drivers and Alesi all making a claim.

My respect of Patrese went up by a lot, and Mansell downwards a fair bit, when i learned that Williams didn't want Patrese to win. They wanted "the hero" Mansell too win and had said as much to Patrese that he was a supporting act.

[Gilles4Ever]

From the description of this forum:

 

The place for debates on the current affairs of Formula 1, rallying, MotoGP, NASCAR, V8, Indycar, and all other forms of motorsport

 

. 

 

This thread is not appropriate for this forum and is closed.