Top 10 F1 Drives [Split Topic]

Piquet was a triple champ, yes, but there were question marks about every title.  No question in 1981 Piquet harvested points with an illegal car before FISA tacitly allowed everyone else to copy.  1983 had the iffy fuel (as well as Prost's extracurricular activities) and 1987 may be the least deserved title ever.
 
Which overlooks that he would have been a decent champ in 1980 and basically threw away a winnable 1982 to prepare for the next season.

As for 1987, I understand where you coming from.
But little did we know at that time, since he did not mention it, that Piquet was suffering from more after effects of his Imola crash and for a much longer time than generally was understood. If it is indeed true what has been told about these effects then I think that the physical achievement of Piquet to still end up with the title was an quite an achievement. Perhaps we must wonder what the season would have been had Piquet indeed all season long had been as fit and healthy as the season started. Things may have looked way different then.
Certainly a "What if...."

By the way, what concerns those greatest drives, I wanted to comment a bit on G.Villeneuve's victory at Jarama. I have mentioned before that you can argue every incredible performance has 'circumstances', which support it to take place, so I thought to take a look at it.

 

Basically, Ferrari of 1981 had certain characteristics. They along with Renault had turbo-charged engine, which were way powerful than others. However, Ferrari chassis was a tyre-eater. It happened quite a lot that Ferraris would go fast in the beginning, but drop off late in the race due to tyre wear.

 

So the only way for GV to win anything, was... go fast early, maximize the speed and try to hang on later. GV made a great start at Jarama and made some good overtaking moves capitalizing on the good power from his engine. But once tyres started to go off, he had no other chance than to hang on and defend, which he did well.

 

Basically the window of opportunity for Villeneuve to win a race in 1981 was to maximize potential of the car early in the race, and do it on a circuit, where ironically it is difficult to overtake. Because getting overtaken late in the race is what happened to Ferrari on other faster circuits.

Piquet was a triple champ, yes, but there were question marks about every title. No question in 1981 Piquet harvested points with an illegal car before FISA tacitly allowed everyone else to copy. 1983 had the iffy fuel (as well as Prost's extracurricular activities) and 1987 may be the least deserved title ever.

Which overlooks that he would have been a decent champ in 1980 and basically threw away a winnable 1982 to prepare for the next season.

The car possibly being illegal doesn't take away from Nelson's performances though. Especially 1983. Schumacher's 1994 was questionable too (to put it nicely), doesn't take away from the fact his performances were head and shoulders above Hill's.

Out of genuine interest, could you explain this one? I'm not convinced Raikkonen even put in the best drive of that race, let alone one of the best 10 overall since 2005 (when you begin your sample). Raikkonen ran out very wide at turn 1, used the advantage from this to overtake the very slow BMW of Kubica on the Kemmel straight, then missed his braking point into Les Combes, returned into Kubica's path and somehow got to keep the place. With that in mind, the drives of Fisichella (Force India's first points - and a podium no less!) and Kubica (holding onto 4th place in a pretty woeful car with an engine that was heavily turned down) that day seemed a lot more impressive to me - or am I missing something?

 

 

After last season ended he gave an interview in Finnish (to Heikki Kulta) where he said that the 2009 car was a total piece of ****, only bested by the F14T which he called the biggest pile of turd he's driven.  Also said that the Spa 2009 win was in his own eyes his best win / drive.

For those interested, here's video footage of the top 10:

 

Notable that this FOM approved list contains only one race from the last decade.

 

Four of the 10 drives happened more than half a century ago; all four are in the top 5.

Edited by Nonesuch, 12 April 2019 - 11:39.

Too many British drives on the list for my taste. But okay, it is expected having in mind who is the creator of this list.

Too many British drives on the list for my taste. But okay, it is expected having in mind who is the creator of this list.

Explain? Just in case you didn't quite mean what you are implying.

Strictly speaking peak performances, talent and ability... Piquet is criminally underrated. A triple World Champion in the 80s no less.

We see how lauded someone like Hakkinen is when these 'best of' lists are created. Granted he was a great driver... but you'll always see him ahead of someone like Piquet. Which shouldn't necessarily be the case.

I think his abrasiveness and the way his career dived from Lotus onwards plays a big part in that.

 

This. At the top of his game he was on pair with the best. British press specialy was cruel with him and his legacy. 1987 was maybe the reason: Copping with severe injuries after Imola, slower than Mansell after that and even so won the championship. I say, within the circunstances, it was his best one because  in 1981,1983 he was at his phisical peak and had 1st driver status. 

Edited by Taxi, 12 April 2019 - 13:17.

Explain? Just in case you didn't quite mean what you are implying.

I'm saying the author is biased in creating the list, nothing else.

I think that Piquet more than redeemed himself for the Lotus period (when the cars were terrible anyway) with the 3rd place in the WDC in 1990.
Whatever anyone may say, he finished 3rd in the season when McLaren, Ferrari and likely Williams had better cars.

His Adelaide drive is perhaps not one of the top 10 of all times but it was one of the best drives of the year.
Long Beach 1980 was also great, Canada 1982 (with roasted foot), Monza 1986....

About 1987, again, it’s a great feat not only because of Imola but because it was won while fighting not his teammate but his team - similarly to Lauda in 1977. Piquet scored the record number of points and was almost always on the podium.

Edited by boillot, 12 April 2019 - 13:50.

I think it's a compliment to him.  Mansell apparently complained that Prost spent so long setting up the car to make it easy to drive, which bemused Prost, as he said "but isn't that the point?"  Prost tended to get himself into situations where he did not need to tiger - he'd just sail off into the sunset.

 

You've seen I'd question Fangio's one drive listed in the top 10 and that's the same sort of thing.  When you've a second in hand you never need to do anything but cruise home from the front.  That never looks spectacular. 

 

There is also the thing that Prost and Fangio got themselves into front-running cars early in their careers, and stayed there.  So there were never any sort of come-from-behind underdog performances in filth which would have stood out. 
 

 

At that time didn`t Prost have an advantage do to his light weight and the fact that he was small stacture.

Edited by 7WDC, 12 April 2019 - 15:51.

I'm saying the author is biased in creating the list, nothing else.

Tremayne is better than that. But your wording implied journalistic bias was ok as a reason, you just didn't like so many Brits on the list for whatever reason. If so, I can introduce you to plenty of sports where a top 10 would be Brit free. In motorsport however a strong representation is inevitable and fair.

Notable that this FOM approved list contains only one race from the last decade.

 

Four of the 10 drives happened more than half a century ago; all four are in the top 5.

I think it was easier to make a legendary performance long time ago. The differences between cars, drivers, higher attrition, everything being much further away from perfection meant that If you nailed the set-up and managed to stay out of trouble, you would often dominate the race in a manner that is hardly possible today.

Tremayne is better than that. But your wording implied journalistic bias was ok as a reason, you just didn't like so many Brits on the list for whatever reason. If so, I can introduce you to plenty of sports where a top 10 would be Brit free. In motorsport however a strong representation is inevitable and fair.

English is not my first language, so sorry if my post was confusing. The sole point of my post was that the list was biased, nothing else. I do not have anything against British people.

I think it was easier to make a legendary performance long time ago. The differences between cars, drivers, higher attrition, everything being much further away from perfection meant that If you nailed the set-up and managed to stay out of trouble, you would often dominate the race in a manner that is hardly possible today.

I think there's a bit of a bias towards the 1960s, but it's subjective so would always have been biased one way or another. Tremayne makes a lot of the incredible four minute gap, and rightly so, but let's face it - it's virtually impossible to win a race by four minutes nowadays. Nobody has won an F1 race by a lap in 25 years. The cars are too close together and the races are too short.

So whilst I completely agree with Stewart's drive being on the list, how can it be meaningfully compared to (say) Hamilton at Silverstone in 2008? It cannot. But it's all a bit of fun

Edited by Spillage, 12 April 2019 - 18:29.

I'm going to throw in an alternative to Lauda at Monza.  Sure, it was abnormally brave to come back in such circumstances, but he wasn't the only one who did so.

 

Look at this.

 

 

It's all that was left of an Osella after Piercarlo Ghinzani crashed it at the Jukskei Sweep at Kyalami in 1984.

 

Three weeks later he was driving at the very next race.  Despite some serious burns.  For the next few races, he would creep behind the pits, when he thought nobody was watching, and pull dead skin away.

 

There has never been a driver so willing and desperate to claw onto a Formula 1 drive as Ghinzani.  He won two F3 championships to earn his superlicence.  And the first chance he got was the Dywa, an hideously dangerous thing that he hustled around Monza in an Aurora practice session, to the fear and marvel of everyone watching.

 

One thing he was brilliant at was getting sponsorship.  He got sponsors that stayed loyal to him for a decade of back-of-grid-ism.  Including a weightlifting equipment manufacturer.  Which was a spectacular bit of salesmanship as the heaviest thing Peter Charles lifted was a cigarette.  But he was not unfit - he was a sportscar stalwart and even won two world championship rounds.

 

But his great drive was when he was still recovering.  Dallas 1984.

 

Now that was a circuit.  A fast street circuit.  With wet tarmac.  They had laid it too recently to do any good.  And some brains trust decided to hold the race in the height of summer, with the track temps heading into the sort of figures that make Death Valley look like the Bering Straits.  Some drivers were smart; Corrado Fabi and Ghinzani both silvered their helmets to reflect some of the heat.  The smartest, for once, was not Lauda, but Keke Rosberg, who got a liquid-cooled skullcap to keep him reasonable.

 

So.  Street circuit.  Walls.  Breaking up track.  Murderous heat.  It was only the great and good who could cope.  And not even all of them.  Prost crashed.  Lauda crashed.  Piquet crashed.  Tambay crashed.  Warwick crashed, trying to pass Mansell for the lead, thinking the red flag was imminent.  It astounds me to say, but de Cesaris crashed.  Alliot and Brundle crashed before the race.  Hesnault, Surer, Alboreto, Cecotto, Patrese all crashed.

 

Ghinzani didn't.

 

In fact Ghinzani passed Fabi in the race-winning Brabham.  Driving a poxy old Osella.  Still based around their 1980 tub.

 

Indeed he kept going to finish an astonishing 5th.  Osella's best genuine result in a decade of haplessness.

 

Therefore, Ghinzani, with horrific injuries, was only 1 place worse off than Lauda in 1976, but in a shitbox, on a rally circuit. 

 

(Arnoux also had a day of days - coming from a pitlane start to 2nd.  René occasionally had these mammoth bursts of speed...)

By the way, what concerns those greatest drives, I wanted to comment a bit on G.Villeneuve's victory at Jarama. I have mentioned before that you can argue every incredible performance has 'circumstances', which support it to take place, so I thought to take a look at it.

Basically, Ferrari of 1981 had certain characteristics. They along with Renault had turbo-charged engine, which were way powerful than others. However, Ferrari chassis was a tyre-eater. It happened quite a lot that Ferraris would go fast in the beginning, but drop off late in the race due to tyre wear.

So the only way for GV to win anything, was... go fast early, maximize the speed and try to hang on later. GV made a great start at Jarama and made some good overtaking moves capitalizing on the good power from his engine. But once tyres started to go off, he had no other chance than to hang on and defend, which he did well.

Basically the window of opportunity for Villeneuve to win a race in 1981 was to maximize potential of the car early in the race, and do it on a circuit, where ironically it is difficult to overtake. Because getting overtaken late in the race is what happened to Ferrari on other faster circuits.

A line behind a Ferrari was indeed a familiar sight that year. Pironi also made a few rocket starts and led most of Imola. I remember Jones comnenting on their early turbo reliability and being a potential threat. Obviously they hit the combination in 1982 but.....

I'm going to throw in an alternative to Lauda at Monza.  Sure, it was abnormally brave to come back in such circumstances, but he wasn't the only one who did so.

 

Look at this.

 

 

It's all that was left of an Osella after Piercarlo Ghinzani crashed it at the Jukskei Sweep at Kyalami in 1984.

 

Three weeks later he was driving at the very next race.  Despite some serious burns.  For the next few races, he would creep behind the pits, when he thought nobody was watching, and pull dead skin away.

 

There has never been a driver so willing and desperate to claw onto a Formula 1 drive as Ghinzani.  He won two F3 championships to earn his superlicence.  And the first chance he got was the Dywa, an hideously dangerous thing that he hustled around Monza in an Aurora practice session, to the fear and marvel of everyone watching.

 

One thing he was brilliant at was getting sponsorship.  He got sponsors that stayed loyal to him for a decade of back-of-grid-ism.  Including a weightlifting equipment manufacturer.  Which was a spectacular bit of salesmanship as the heaviest thing Peter Charles lifted was a cigarette.  But he was not unfit - he was a sportscar stalwart and even won two world championship rounds.

 

But his great drive was when he was still recovering.  Dallas 1984.

 

Now that was a circuit.  A fast street circuit.  With wet tarmac.  They had laid it too recently to do any good.  And some brains trust decided to hold the race in the height of summer, with the track temps heading into the sort of figures that make Death Valley look like the Bering Straits.  Some drivers were smart; Corrado Fabi and Ghinzani both silvered their helmets to reflect some of the heat.  The smartest, for once, was not Lauda, but Keke Rosberg, who got a liquid-cooled skullcap to keep him reasonable.

 

So.  Street circuit.  Walls.  Breaking up track.  Murderous heat.  It was only the great and good who could cope.  And not even all of them.  Prost crashed.  Lauda crashed.  Piquet crashed.  Tambay crashed.  Warwick crashed, trying to pass Mansell for the lead, thinking the red flag was imminent.  It astounds me to say, but de Cesaris crashed.  Alliot and Brundle crashed before the race.  Hesnault, Surer, Alboreto, Cecotto, Patrese all crashed.

 

Ghinzani didn't.

 

In fact Ghinzani passed Fabi in the race-winning Brabham.  Driving a poxy old Osella.  Still based around their 1980 tub.

 

Indeed he kept going to finish an astonishing 5th.  Osella's best genuine result in a decade of haplessness.

 

Therefore, Ghinzani, with horrific injuries, was only 1 place worse off than Lauda in 1976, but in a shitbox, on a rally circuit. 

 

(Arnoux also had a day of days - coming from a pitlane start to 2nd.  René occasionally had these mammoth bursts of speed...)

 

Good times, these.  Thanks for recounting this memory for all of us. 

I think there's a bit of a bias towards the 1960s, but it's subjective so would always have been biased one way or another. Tremayne makes a lot of the incredible four minute gap, and rightly so, but let's face it - it's virtually impossible to win a race by four minutes nowadays. Nobody has won an F1 race by a lap in 25 years. The cars are too close together and the races are too short.

So whilst I completely agree with Stewart's drive being on the list, how can it be meaningfully compared to (say) Hamilton at Silverstone in 2008? It cannot. But it's all a bit of fun

 

Hill won Australia 1995 by 2 laps which just slips inside your 25 years 

Hill won Australia 1995 by 2 laps which just slips inside your 25 years

Perhaps he did not win it ahead of a G. Hill and a Rindt but it was still a very good performance. And then he drove the Hungary 1997.

Good times, these.  Thanks for recounting this memory for all of us. 

Good times?

This. At the top of his game he was on pair with the best. British press specialy was cruel with him and his legacy. 1987 was maybe the reason: Copping with severe injuries after Imola, slower than Mansell after that and even so won the championship. I say, within the circunstances, it was his best one because  in 1981,1983 he was at his phisical peak and had 1st driver status.

Piquets crime was arguably being a bit of a prick, and even that was mostly flames fanned by the British press because of his dynamic with Our Nige. It goes to show how powerful the press' opinion on drivers is particularly in this country. We build drivers up but also inflict stereotypes on them that they don't always live up to.

Look at Damon Hill. The narrative there was the steady, hardworking, late-starting son of Graham battling the odds and much more naturally talented drivers and with the help of Adrian Newey, coming out on top occasionally. Then look at Japan 1994 or Hungary 1997 and tell me how that absolute brilliance on show there matches that? Actually, Damon Hill had a lovely flowing driving style honed on years as a test driver and was capable of outpacing Alain Prost pretty much straight out of the box. He had plenty of natural flair.

outpacing Alain Prost? are you serious?

He set poles and won races on merit in 1993, so yes.

Clearly wasn't better or quicker over the season, nobody's saying that.

The biggest thing where Damon was ahead of Prost in 1993 was starts. Despite having 13 poles, Prost led after first lap only 4 times. Hill had 2 poles and was leading 7 times after first lap. 

Fear for Donington '93 being overhyped as usual being the winner. As mentioned already, even Senna himself didn't rate that victory so high and for good reasons too. Estoril '85 was way more impressive and a top 3 for me.

Hear, hear!

The biggest thing where Damon was ahead of Prost in 1993 was starts. Despite having 13 poles, Prost led after first lap only 4 times. Hill had 2 poles and was leading 7 times after first lap. 

HIll made less errors. He finished 2nd in Brazil in the wet, whereas Prost spun off. Prost also jumped the start and then stalled in the pit lane in Monaco, stalled on the grid in Hungary and as you say fluffed a number of starts.

Also Hill lost 20 points in Britain and Germany through no fault of his own - with Prost gaining 4 on Hill thanks to the engine failure at the British GP.

 

That would have narrowed the gap between them in the title to 6...and Hill followed Prost home in France thanks to team orders...

Also Hill lost 20 points in Britain and Germany through no fault of his own - with Prost gaining 4 on Hill thanks to the engine failure at the British GP.

 

That would have narrowed the gap between them in the title to 6...and Hill followed Prost home in France thanks to team orders...

 

Prost also gained four on Hill in Germany when he inherited the win after Hill's tyre failure. However, Hill did get pay back for one of those lost wins, when Prost's engine let go at Monza whilst he was leading, giving the win to Hill.

Look at Damon Hill. The narrative there was the steady, hardworking, late-starting son of Graham battling the odds and much more naturally talented drivers and with the help of Adrian Newey, coming out on top occasionally. 

 

 

Pretty much this. He was a decent driver, but not much more really. He was mediocre  in the best car in 1995, got anywhere close to championship fight in 1994 only because of 4 race bans for Michael, which granted Hill with free victories. And then got his title in a dominant car in 1996 without any competition. And finally getting his last win through moaning on the radio and asking the team to slow down Ralf. Meh.

 

1997 was a strange season, Prost, Stewart and Arrows all had their high moments because of bridgestone.

Pfft, Ralf was only close cos the safety car squished them all up.

Prost also gained four on Hill in Germany when he inherited the win after Hill's tyre failure. However, Hill did get pay back for one of those lost wins, when Prost's engine let go at Monza whilst he was leading, giving the win to Hill.

 

Prost also received a ridiculous penalty in Germany, for cutting a corner in order to avoid being T-boned by a car spinning behind him.

Pretty much this. He was a decent driver, but not much more really. He was mediocre in the best car in 1995, got anywhere close to championship fight in 1994 only because of 4 race bans for Michael, which granted Hill with free victories. And then got his title in a dominant car in 1996 without any competition. And finally getting his last win through moaning on the radio and asking the team to slow down Ralf. Meh.

1997 was a strange season, Prost, Stewart and Arrows all had their high moments because of bridgestone.

Wow

Damon Hill was cruelly underrated. The reason is simple. We all complained he wasn't as good as Schumacher. Which, with hindsight, is a pretty silly reason to complain about anybody.

Piquets crime was arguably being a bit of a prick, and even that was mostly flames fanned by the British press because of his dynamic with Our Nige. It goes to show how powerful the press' opinion on drivers is particularly in this country. We build drivers up but also inflict stereotypes on them that they don't always live up to.

It seems to come up a lot that Piquet's reputation as not-quite-as-great as some of the drivers comes from the British press. But I think this is complete rubbish. For a start, I doubt many people posting on an internet forum in 2019 are basing their opinions on stuff they read in the British press in 1986/7 well over 30 years ago, especially when a lot of the people expressing these opinions are either not British or were not born then. Basically Piquet did have a reputation of being a top driver when he joined Williams, and Mansell did not, and Mansell went on to be the more effective driver of the two. That's the long and short of it. In 1986 it was close, but I think most people would still give it to Mansell. And in 1987, Mansell was far superior but just more unlucky with mechanical failures. Yes, Piquet had that Imola accident, but the thing about it affecting his vision didn't come out for years as far as I'm aware so it's not unreasonable at least for people watching at the time to have concluded that Mansell was simply better. In any case, he was still able to be quick at some circuits - it's just that Mansell was quick far more consistently. How much the accident affected him is debatable in any case.

Edit - It's worth noting anyway that Mansell himself is generally not right near the top of people's lists of greats so I don't see this as anything particularly unfair against Piquet.
 

Look at Damon Hill. The narrative there was the steady, hardworking, late-starting son of Graham battling the odds and much more naturally talented drivers and with the help of Adrian Newey, coming out on top occasionally. Then look at Japan 1994 or Hungary 1997 and tell me how that absolute brilliance on show there matches that? Actually, Damon Hill had a lovely flowing driving style honed on years as a test driver and was capable of outpacing Alain Prost pretty much straight out of the box. He had plenty of natural flair.

There are lots of drives that have been mentioned in this thread, some of which I agree with and some which I don't, but there is only one drive I have heard talked about where I think I must have been watching a different race from other people, and that is Suzuka 1994. It's often talked about as the race where Hill beat Schumacher in a straight fight, when it was anything but. In the race I watched, Hill ended up on a better strategy than Schumacher because of the safety car and stoppages, and that meant that Schumacher lost time and went further down into the field when he had to stop. Towards the end of the race, he was hunting Hill down anyway, but in the end ran out of laps. It was a solid drive from Hill keeping it all together in the wet, but that was his job that day given the advantage of his strategy.

Edited by PlatenGlass, 16 April 2019 - 20:56.

Hear, hear!

I think people are nuts.

 

I am way more impressed with Donnington 93 than Interlagos 91 or Estoril 1985.

 

In Estoril 1985, De Angelis was right there fighting with Prost Mclaren-Tag, you can't say that car was a shitbox that day, but anyway Senna blew the grid away.

 

Interlagos 91, apart from the car problem, could clearly challenge Williams.

 

Now i ask you, any of you, remember the gap that Williams had that weekend in 1993? Did you at least some day searched for the qualifying and saw that gap?

Ayrton Senna finished that qualy +1.7s behind Alain Prost and +1.4s behind Damon Hill.

 

Ayrton slowed down very much in the last lap, he was very close to lap Damon Hill before it.

 

Can you imagine a Haas going to win and lap a Mercedes in a rain affected race?

Edited by Boxerevo, 16 April 2019 - 21:04.

I think people are nuts.

I am way more impressed with Donnington 93 than Interlagos 91 or Estoril 1985.

In Estoril 1985, De Angelis was right there fighting with Prost Mclaren-Tag, you can't say that car was a shitbox that day, but anyway Senna blew the grid away.

Interlagos 91, apart from the car problem, could clearly challenge Williams.

Now i ask you, any of you, remember the gap that Williams had that weekend in 1993? Did you at least some day searched for the qualifying and saw that gap?

Williams’ drivers race there was a parade example of incompetence. Prost visited the pits what, seven times.

Damon Hill was cruelly underrated. The reason is simple. We all complained he wasn't as good as Schumacher. Which, with hindsight, is a pretty silly reason to complain about anybody.

1995 was what did it, and to be fair that season was a bit of a mess. He made, what, four race-ending errors? Silverstone, Monza, Suzuka, Nurburgring. He also crashed on lap 2 in Germany, but that's often put down to mechanical failure. Either way, he was comprehensively outperformed by Schumacher despite driving what was, at best, evenly matched machinery.

A bit like Vettel last season really. And like Vettel, there were occasional moments of brilliance. On balance Hill was a worthy world champion in an era not blessed with an abundance of top talent.

I think people are nuts.
 
I am way more impressed with Donnington 93 than Interlagos 91 or Estoril 1985.
 
In Estoril 1985, De Angelis was right there fighting with Prost Mclaren-Tag, you can't say that car was a shitbox that day, but anyway Senna blew the grid away.
 
Interlagos 91, apart from the car problem, could clearly challenge Williams.
 
Now i ask you, any of you, remember the gap that Williams had that weekend in 1993? Did you at least some day searched for the qualifying and saw that gap?
Ayrton Senna finished that qualy +1.7s behind Alain Prost and +1.4s behind Damon Hill.
 
Ayrton slowed down very much in the last lap, he was very close to lap Damon Hill before it.
 
Can you imagine a Haas going to win and lap a Mercedes in a rain affected race?

 

Seems as if you've lost a very interesting post within a quote made by the driver in question himself that I will happily requote:

 

Well, Senna himself said that Donington 1993 was nowhere near as impressive a performance as Estoril 1985. 
 


Eight years on, in similar conditions, he would win for McLaren at Donington, his opening lap as mesmeric as any the sport has known, but Ayrton scoffed at those who thought it his greatest drive: “No way! I had traction control! It was a good win, sure, but compared with Estoril ’85 — turbo engine, a lot more power, no traction control, normal gearbox — it was nothing, really…”

 
I genuinely think even Senna wouldn't understand why his Donington drive is so overhyped by posterity.

 


And finally allow me to requote myself with an explanation about that particular race that describes the situation and of which I am sure that was on Senna's own mind too, hence why he probably made his comments about that '93 race.

 

Could be....

But up till 1992: rain had always been the great equalizer within a race, pretty much making all cars closer to another and allowing drivers of lesser cars to shine due to their skills.
In Doningron '93 this was not the case at all anymore, if fact it was the opposite.
You had roughly the following cars in the starting field:

Class 1: Cars fitted with traction control and active suspension
Class 2: Cars fitted with traction control
Class 3: Cars fitted with active
Class 4: Cars without any of these aids.

In that race, Class 1 and 2 stood out above all other cars, no matter who drove them.
Senna himself stated that this particular race was kind of easy for him because of the traction control he had while so many other drivers had not. can recall having read something about a grand total of only 8 cars been fitted with traction control in that race. Williams was one of course.
But all other cars not, which effectively virtually eliminated them from being a factor in that race. Something Like Brazil '81 when Surer brought in a hopeless Ensign in 4th due to his skills was impossible at Donington.

Senna himself had more praise for his other rain races in which he was victorious or excelled (Montreal '89 comes to mind)

Ravelling about Senna beating everyone that race so handsomely isn't fair to the majority of the field who simply lacked the tool needed that day: traction control. Kudos to him for acknowledging this all the time.
This race, and the aftermath of Brazil '93 are the two rain races in which the field had been the least equal of all rain races ever held

That Estoril race you wipe away: In that race Senna drove a car that was nowhere near as suitable to be driven in a rain race as his '93 mcLaren was. In '85 he was one of a large number of driving such unsuitable cars (turbo lag, no traction control etc.) In Donington '93 he was only one of 8 drivers who cars that had all gizmos that made the car superior to everything else so that day he had only 7 drivers that could do anything against him. Way less worries that another outsider would rise to the occasion like he had done in '85 or Canada '89.
And he realized that.
The only truly humiliated drivers that day were the two Williams drivers because they drove cars that were equal, if not superior to his car. But the other cars were of little and no opposition anymore. Of course, other than becoming world champion, nothing else could satisfy Senna so much as humiliating Prost. But other than that, Donington '93 is simply overrated by too many people. Good drive for sure but nowhere near as legendarary as some other rain races mentioned, thanks to the advanced technology available to only a part of the field.

 

Seems as if you've lost a very interesting post within a quote made by the driver in question himself that I will happily requote:

 
 


And finally allow me to requote myself with an explanation about that particular race that describes the situation and of which I am sure that was on Senna's own mind too, hence why he probably made his comments about that '93 race.

 

That Estoril race you wipe away: In that race Senna drove a car that was nowhere near as suitable to be driven in a rain race as his '93 mcLaren was. In '85 he was one of a large number of driving such unsuitable cars (turbo lag, no traction control etc.) In Donington '93 he was only one of 8 drivers who cars that had all gizmos that made the car superior to everything else so that day he had only 7 drivers that could do anything against him. Way less worries that another outsider would rise to the occasion like he had done in '85 or Canada '89.
And he realized that.
The only truly humiliated drivers that day were the two Williams drivers because they drove cars that were equal, if not superior to his car. But the other cars were of little and no opposition anymore. Of course, other than becoming world champion, nothing else could satisfy Senna so much as humiliating Prost. But other than that, Donington '93 is simply overrated by too many people. Good drive for sure but nowhere near as legendarary as some other rain races mentioned, thanks to the advanced technology available to only a part of the field.

 

I agree.

The only driver that could match Senna in the wet that day was probably Schumacher but i think that at that time they didn`t have TC untill Monaco race.

It does not really matter  if midfield teams had TC or not in that race. Having lapped Williams which did have TC and was the dominant car in that season is all that really matters and all that you really need to know about Senna's perfomance.  There is little doubt the same would happen to other teams as well even if they had TC (maybe only Michael). It was a special drive. I take Senna's comments with a pinch of sault.

It does not really matter  if midfield teams had TC or not in that race. Having lapped Williams which did have TC and was the dominant car in that season is all that really matters and all that you really need to know about Senna's perfomance.  There is little doubt the same would happen to other teams as well even if they had TC (maybe only Michael). It was a special drive. I take Senna's comments with a pinch of sault.

 

No, it is not everything that matters.

As some descriptions of other rain races made clear already, before the rain races of early '93 it happened often enough that drivers who normally would not stand a chance against the top cars in dry races all of a sudden could show their skills now circumstances made the race conditions way more equal if it came to levels of grip, maximum speed possible and so on. Ensign14's description of how Jean-Pierre Beltoise rose to the occasion in Monaco '72 is a great example.

 

Nothing like that was possible in Donington that race.

Yes, it is indeed very likely that Senna would have dominated that race anyway had all cars being fitted with TC. I rate it as more than 99% likely.

But just like other rain masters occasionally had to bite the dust because of an unexpected hero standing up, such could alos have happened at Donington had the technical specs of the cars more equal, i.e. all cars fitted with TC or none of them.

Given what whe saw from him in later years: what if MS had driven a TC fitted Benetton? Could so easily have turned into something like Monaco '84 when Senna showed what was to come in the future, but then by MS?

 

It was a great drive. But one one that, unlike just about every other rain race being memorable because the rain added uncertainty to the race with provinding wildcards to the entire field, instead the rain reduced the chances for the majority of the starting field and narrowed down the list of possible winners even more..

I think you can take Senna's comments in the sense that for him personally Estoril '85 was more challenging to drive than Donington '93. He was brilliant in the wet either way, but from his POV from the cockpit guess is it harder to handle conditions without TC or with TC? And also in Estoril it was raining harder, Donington was quite damp and at times dryish. I think McLaren also nailed the setup in Donington, in contrast to Williams, which also makes a difference in the wet. I remember Andretti was also overtaking cars on the opening lap before he spun off.

I think there's a bit of a bias towards the 1960s, but it's subjective so would always have been biased one way or another. Tremayne makes a lot of the incredible four minute gap, and rightly so, but let's face it - it's virtually impossible to win a race by four minutes nowadays. Nobody has won an F1 race by a lap in 25 years. The cars are too close together and the races are too short.
 

It's also amusing how those guys labeled as "thinking" drivers, winning at the slowest possible speed, never losing their head in the heat of battle, never risking too much and all that, when once in a while they win with a large (and, by the former definition, quite unnecessary) gap, it's suddenly a great thing.

 

I mean, I can virtually here how JYS hypothetically commenting that day would go on all race how stupid it was of the leader to go that fast in those conditions when a much slower speed would have sufficed to win.     

It does not really matter if midfield teams had TC or not in that race. Having lapped Williams which did have TC and was the dominant car in that season is all that really matters and all that you really need to know about Senna's perfomance. There is little doubt the same would happen to other teams as well even if they had TC (maybe only Michael). It was a special drive. I take Senna's comments with a pinch of sault.

He lapped Prost because of Prost's mess ups, and less because of his brilliance. It was close for a lot of the race, but two extra stops and stalling did for Prost.

The efforts and energy going into denigrating Donington '93 could probably power a bobby car around that track for a few laps.
 
[edit, content removed]

Edited by jcbc3, 18 April 2019 - 11:40.
No reason to comment on other users in thread

None of it touches the splendour of the lap for me, I still think it's a thing of wonder and one of the sweet things about it is how it seems to catch Murray off guard - only James Hunt (at first) seems to notice just how amazing it all is as it unfolds

And finally getting his last win through moaning on the radio and asking the team to slow down Ralf. Meh.

 
Ralf was only behind Damon because of the SC. Also, Damon had a slow puncture which hindered his pace after that. And he didn't ask for Ralf being slowed down. He said that if Ralf was to attack him, he would fight hard to stay ahead which could mean a crash = 0 points for the team and that it was up to the team whether they were allowed to fight. Considering the circumstances, I think Damon had every right to make his statement. Ralf would have been nowhere near him without these external factors - in the first 8 laps, Damon was flying in the lead and building up a gap of 25 seconds over Ralf who was running 7th at the time.
 

Williams’ drivers race there was a parade example of incompetence. Prost visited the pits what, seven times.

 
It was the team's doing, not the drivers'. They had a setup to dry conditions, and also there was chaos with regards to the pit stops. Prost visited the pits seven times indeed - could anyone believe that a driver so frequently accused of being too analytical and methodical would pit seven times during a race under normal circumstances? This was the race that Prost wanted more control over the setup and strategy decisions after (it has been confirmed many times that he didn't like his stint with Williams due to Paddy Lowe insisting on using computers for everything - even if the suggested setup or strategy was not in line with the feedback of the drivers).
 
What followed in Imola is largely forgotten -  presumably because it doesn't fit nicely in the agenda against Prost/in favour of Senna in the whole Prost vs Senna saga which has always been heavily biased towards Ayrton. Prost set the car up to his liking and in similar damp conditions chased and overtook Hill and Senna on track and then pulled a gap of over 25 seconds in thirty-odd laps on Senna until Ayrton was forced to retire. All this, after only two weeks of Donington. To say that it gives a clearer picture of the whole struggle Williams had in Donington is an understatement.
 

The efforts and energy going into denigrating Donington '93 could probably power a bobby car around that track for a few laps.
 
---

 
Do you mean Senna himself? How can a drive be denigrated if the driver performing said drive stated himself he didn't rate it as highly as some of his other drives? I think it's fair to say that while Donington was a very good drive indeed, no denying that - but it wasn't magical nor Senna's best performance by a long shot - and the man himself would most probably agree.

Edited by jcbc3, 18 April 2019 - 11:41.

What followed in Imola is largely forgotten -  presumably because it doesn't fit nicely in the agenda against Prost/in favour of Senna in the whole Prost vs Senna saga which has always been heavily biased towards Ayrton. Prost set the car up to his liking and in similar damp conditions chased and overtook Hill and Senna on track and then pulled a gap of over 25 seconds in thirty-odd laps on Senna until Ayrton was forced to retire. All this, after only two weeks of Donington. To say that it gives a clearer picture of the whole struggle Williams had in Donington is an understatement.