79 replies to this topic

[Aloisio]

Are you sure that in 1993 Prost sucked and Senna was overwhelmingly superior to his opponents?
I guess history has been written one way, but as a matter of fact there's much more than one single side of the story...

I would like to share opinions on this subject.

Peace and love

Aloisio

[Stephan]

To me it seemed that Prost took the safe approach, especially in the races. His qualifying record that year was very good, but it seemed that Hill was closer in the races than necessary.

Senna that year was a difficult case, he first was on a race-to-race contract for the first few races, because he was unhappy with the Ford engine treatment McLaren got (in comparison to Benetton). However, when he got the fire burning, he was incredibly fast.

Senna probably was the faster of the two that year, but Prost basically came back and cruised to a rather easy fourth WDC.

Remember the Donington Press conference, where Prost was complaining about his car after having lost to a superior and sublime Senna that day? Senna replied along the lines of "Do you want to trade cars?"

[DOF_power]

>
^ The traction control and active suspensions of the McLaren where quite good when/if they didn't fail (big when/if), and made the Macs quite fast compared to the more powerful but less advanced/sophisticated Benettons.

[potmotr]

Prost did what he needed to do to win.

You always felt like he had plenty in reserve.

Senna drove great races, but there were also races like Monza where he tripped over Hill at the start then smashed into the back of Brundle.

Then there was Senna's blatant chopping of Prost at Kyalami and Silverstone.

He was also outqualified by Hakkinen in Portugal...

Prost barely made a mistake aside from Brazil, and did as much as he needed to do.

[craftverk]

Originally posted by DOF_power
>
^ The traction control and active suspensions of the McLaren where quite good when/if they didn't fail (big when/if), and made the Macs quite fast compared to the more powerful but less advanced/sophisticated Benettons.

Didn't McLaren eventually get the Benneton spec engine?

[Stephan]

Originally posted by potmotr
Prost barely made a mistake aside from Brazil, and did as much as he needed to do.

His starts that year weren't that pretty too! Often losing many places, jumping the start in Monaco and stalling the car in the pits.

[DOF_power]

>
^ True, he never got the hand of pressing the neutral button of the semi-auto.

[Atreiu]

Senna drove him socks off in the slower MP4-8. It was a shame unreliability dropped him off certain podiums, they might have made things even better and taken Prost out of his comfort zone.

Anyhow, Prost and Williams deserved the titles. Senna still had a very impressive season and Schumacher reassured himself as a growing force.

And the cars looks beautiful.

[Aloisio]

Originally posted by Stephan


His starts that year weren't that pretty too! Often losing many places, jumping the start in Monaco and stalling the car in the pits.

You are right, but we have to remember that Williams had many clutch problems, just think about Montecarlo, Hungary, Hockenheim, Estoril, Donington... where Prost and Hill stalled engine in pits or at parade lap. You can't blame drivers, it's obvious the car had this unsolvable problem throughout all the season.

[DOF_power]

Originally posted by craftverk

Didn't McLaren eventually get the Benneton spec engine?

Yeah, but I can't remember at what race. The Macas also had a nice semi-auto besides active suspensions and TC/LC. The Williams still more sophisticated as they got ABS later on and where testing an auto eCVT witch was banned.

[fines]

Originally posted by Stephan
Remember the Donington Press conference, where Prost was complaining about his car after having lost to a superior and sublime Senna that day? Senna replied along the lines of "Do you want to trade cars?"

Yeah, and remind me, how many World Championship points did Senna collect once he got the car?

[john winfield]

1993....slightly OT but, at Spa, I remember Senna not being able to hang on to Schumacher and the two Williams. What was the problem, technical I assume, that afflicted both Benettons at the start? Did they have similar problems elsewhere? Whatever it was, at Spa Schumacher's fight back and the well-matched Williams gave us one of the races of the season with, I think, Senna finishing a distant fourth.

[Stephan]

Originally posted by fines
Yeah, and remind me, how many World Championship points did Senna collect once he got the car?

Zero. Is your under developed brain failing you again, little man? What's the point of this remark, besides offending people?

[Ferrim]

Senna didn't got the car Prost had. Apart from that there's one obvious fact you are ignoring, of course.

McLaren got the Benetton engine mid-season, Silverstone perhaps. Still it didn't make a big difference.

I feel McLaren just lacked a better engine that year, the car was very good. Of course Senna was a very talented driver, too, but people tend to forget some facts. That day at Donington, for example, I wouldn't risk saying Senna won in an inferior car. He could very well do that, sometimes, but not by over a minute as he did that day. The McLaren wasn't a dog that day, and this was proven by no other than... Michael Andretti.

Andretti started 6th (Senna 4th) and, as the brazilian decimated the field, he started to do the same, overtaking Schumacher in the outside and... messing up as he tried to pass Wendlinger. It takes a great driver to do what Senna did that day in the first lap (Andretti proved it, too), but his car was very well suited to the conditions. You can see Andretti progressing behind Senna in this video of the opening lap:

The McLaren was also very good other days, but most of the time the Williams was just too much superior, McLaren and Benetton were trailing them by a gap not a lot smaller Force India were from the top during the last season (just to see how much times have changed). Schumacher and Senna qualifying times were, over the whole season, 1,8% slower than Prost's as you can see here: http://grandprixstat...y=1993&s=14&w=1 . 1,8% means you are 1.8s from pole (remember, as a mean!) if the lap lasts for 100 seconds or 1m 40 seconds. BTW don't try to use that comparison for recent seasons (2003-2008), as the different qualifying rules have ruined the value of this.

You've already said Prost had a lot of terrible starts that year, but there's a intriguing part about this. Prost started every race from the front row: 13 times from pole position, 2 times behind Hill and 1 behind Senna in the last race at Adelaide, which avoided an unprecedented record of a team scoring every pole position, IIRC). But most of this advantage was usually lost at the start, when he had trouble with the clutch (he wasn't hard enough on it) and other drivers passed him. The intriguing part comes when you look at the races he got good and bad starts.

Grand Prix---------------Started---------------End of the 1st lap---------------End of the race

South Africa---------------1st-----------------------3rd-----------------------------1st------
Brazil----------------------1st-----------------------1st-----------------------------RET-----
Europe--------------------1st-----------------------2nd*----------------------------3rd------
San Marino----------------1st-----------------------3rd-----------------------------1st------
Spain---------------------1st-----------------------2nd-----------------------------1st------
Monaco-------------------1st-----------------------1st-----------------------------4th------
Canada-------------------1st-----------------------2nd-----------------------------1st------
France--------------------2nd----------------------2nd-----------------------------1st------
Great Britain---------------1st----------------------3rd------------------------------1st------
Germany------------------1st-----------------------3rd-----------------------------1st------
Hungary------------------1st----------------------22nd**--------------------------12th-----
Belgium-------------------1st-----------------------1st-----------------------------3rd------
Italy----------------------1st-----------------------1st-----------------------------RET-----
Portugal------------------2nd-----------------------4th-----------------------------2nd-----
Japan--------------------1st------------------------2nd-----------------------------2nd-----
Australia-----------------2nd------------------------2nd-----------------------------2nd-----

*But he got a good start and led for most of the opening lap.
**Stalled on the grid, just in case you wonder.

If you look at this you'll probably find that Prost wouldn't win a race when he got a GOOD start. He started 13 times from pole, but at South Africa, San Marino, Spain, Canada, Britain and Germany he wasn't leading by the end of the first lap, still he won these races; while he was leading at Brazil, Monaco, Belgium, Italy (and he had a good start and was leading at Donington, Senna passed him for the lead at the end of the lap) but didn't win any of them. The only race he won without conceding any position at the start was France, but he didn't start from pole that race so we can still say he wouldn't win a race if he was leading at the end of the first lap.

[Aloisio]

Originally posted by Ferrim
But most of this advantage was usually lost at the start, when he had trouble with the clutch (he wasn't hard enough on it) and other drivers passed him.

Thanks for the interesting infos. The only statement i don't agree with is whne you say Porst had trouble with the clutch beacuse he wasn't hard enough on it. Hill had same trouble, that's why i think the responsibility of bad starts and stalled engine was on Williams, not on drivers.

[FranchittiFan26]

Originally posted by Ferrim Andretti started 6th (Senna 4th) and, as the brazilian decimated the field, he started to do the same, overtaking Schumacher in the outside and... messing up as he tried to pass Wendlinger. It takes a great driver to do what Senna did that day in the first lap (Andretti proved it, too), but his car was very well suited to the conditions. You can see Andretti progressing behind Senna in this video of the opening lap:

I'd never taken any notice of Andretti on that first lap. He certainly was motoring along! You wonder what might have happened had he not screwed up the Wendlinger pass

There is a perception that Prost cruised to the 1993 title in what was the best car. There is little doubt that the Williams FW15C was an incredible racing car. Damon Hill was very close to Prost at times during 1993 and on a few occasions was on the same level. Now, I was a Damon Hill fan, but I'm not stupid enough to claim Hill was as good as Prost. I think Prost kept a lot in hand during 1993. He knew he didn't have to over exert himself to win the title and that is what happened

But Senna's 1993 season was, in many ways, more impressive than any of his three championship winning seasons. He had to work hard for those five wins, driving what was, at times, a car not even in the top three best cars at any given event! Against the back drop of unhappiness at McLaren, Senna's 1993 was very, very good

But the best thing that could have happened for 1993 would have been for Frank Williams to tell Prost where to stick his veto!

[fines]

Originally posted by Stephan


Zero. Is your under developed brain failing you again, little man? What's the point of this remark, besides offending people?

Whom have I offended?

[COUGAR508]

I always felt that Prost was driving within himself that season, whereas Senna was often on the edge, and McLaren were on the edge as regards technology. A couple of Senna's wins were in the rain, but at the end of the year it could be argued that McLaren were superior, although by that stage Williams had probably tailed off and begun preparing for the '94 season.

Looking back, it was a fascinating F1 year.

[lucianoestivill]

Originally posted by Stephan
Remember the Donington Press conference, where Prost was complaining about his car after having lost to a superior and sublime Senna that day? Senna replied along the lines of "Do you want to trade cars?"

I remember the quote, but being a Senna BIG FAN myself, tell you something: his comment was a disgrace. Why? It's simple: by 3rd race of 1993, Prost had 14 points, 1 win, 2 podiums, 3 poles, 1 fastest lap. But by 3rd race of 1994, Senna had 0 points, 0 wins, 0 podiums, 0 fastest laps, and 3 poles. In fact, by 3rd race of 1994, Ayrton was dead, while a year before Prost was still in the running for his "easy" 4th Title.
It's ironic, but finally "car were traded", exactly as Senna wanted, but destiny would be agressive with him in 1994. He had the "car of his dreams" as He himself said about that strange Williams. OK, now you have it, you have to win, no whinings or excuses "Prost-style"... You have the car, go and win. He didn't.

3rd race 1993: Ayrton won superbly.

3rd race 1994: Ayrton died.

Quite a difference....

It would have been better not to trade cars, that's the fact. His move to Williams for competing there in 1994 was what really killed him. Sometimes, the best move, is the move that you don't do.....

R.I.P. Ayrton.

Luciano

PD: I'll develope later in 1993 season since it was very interesting to analise, from a sporting point of view: it was the most mature Ayrton Senna I witnessed, at his best!!!. And, as always, The Professor was there, driving a car which wasn't as easy to drive as everybody believes, but still a Master at work, doing precisely things (no more) to win races and pick points so as to get his Title. Two different styles, two different drivers, but still the same passion: do everything possible (and a bit more) to try to be the Best. All my Respect to those GIANTS.....

[MLC]

Originally posted by Stephan
...but it seemed that Hill was closer in the races than necessary.

I don't think Hill was really that close. When Prost had to push hard, he was able to be quite a bit quicker than Hill. I think Hockenheim is a good example. Despite going up the escape road on the first lap to avoid a spinning car, Prost was able to reel in and pass Hill (before he received a penalty of course). And after getting held up by Senna at Silverstone, Prost caught Hill remarkably quickly before the pace car came out. While leading at Spa in the early laps before the pit stop problem, Cheever was commentating on American TV how Prost was cruising and shortshifting yet still pulling away. Later, Hill said he (Hill) was flat out the whole race.

So I agree with those that felt Prost always had a bit extra in reserve.

[Ferrim]

Originally posted by lucianoestivill


I remember the quote, but being a Senna BIG FAN myself, tell you something: his comment was a disgrace. Why? It's simple: by 3rd race of 1993, Prost had 14 points, 1 win, 2 podiums, 3 poles, 1 fastest lap. But by 3rd race of 1994, Senna had 0 points, 0 wins, 0 podiums, 0 fastest laps, and 3 poles. In fact, by 3rd race of 1993[sic], Ayrton was dead, while a year before Prost was still in the running for his "easy" 4th Title.
It's ironic, but finally "car were traded", exactly as Senna wanted, but destiny would be agressive with him in 1994. He had the "car of his dreams" as He himself said about that strange Williams. OK, now you have it, you have to win, no whinings or excuses "Prost-style"... You have the car, go and win. He didn't.

Again: it wasn't the same car. Look at the big regulations changes between 1993 and 1994.

[zg1972]

Prost certainly didn't forget to drive before the 1993 season. However, he was certainly a bit race-rusty after his sabbatical and I think he knew how good his new car was and simply wasn't prepared to go any further than it was absolutely necessary to achieve his goal, i.e. the WDC, especially as it was his last season in F1.

Rainy races were never his forté and he had no intentions, will or skill to battle Senna in them (Senna won all three, IIRC). He knew that there would be enough dry races for him to score big. I once read that Prost took the 1993 season as a hobby - he was relaxed, enjoyed getting known the car and its myriad of technical gizmos, he enjoyed himself that year as he knew that he, most probably, wouldn't have to get engaged in bitter battles as in 1989-1990 and could have paced himself throughout the year. Lucky guy, what else to say
However, many of his wins were immaculate and when things were going OK, Prost was brilliant as well.

Now, Senna was in a completely different situation and mood. Before the season has even started, he faced an almost certain defeat by his arch-enemy. All he could do was to drive absolutely on the edge, to prove that, had the cars been swapped or the same, a much different outcome would have occured. Kudos to Senna for not giving up on what was de facto a lost battle and for showing the fighting spirit that resulted in one of his best and most mature seasons (although he didn't really need to remind us after Suzuka of how much of a brat he could have been).

The 1993 McLaren also wasn't nowhere near as bad a car as "advertised" in the contemporary media. It had lesser engine than Williams but great chassis (maybe even a better one, being completely new, as Williams' chassis was basically only a minor upgrade of the 1991 FW14) and very advanced electronics. It was of course slower than Williams, but despite 10-15 bhp (2%) weaker Ford engine for the first half of the season, it was easily better than Benetton and not that far off FW15C as the season come to the end. (There's an occasional myth at work here, as McLaren MP4/8 is sometimes being portrayed as being a far lesser car than Benetton B193, with the usual explanation of McLaren not having the "works" Ford V8. This is of course a nonsense because the small difference in engine specifications was equalled when McLaren got the same engine as Benetton by mid-season at Silverstone and because this myth competely neglects much more significant differences in chassis and electronics that were on McLaren' side, especially in the beginning of the season when Benetton didn't even have TC ans Senna scored 3 wins.)

OTOH, Senna's ego never accepted any driver being better than him (and I believe he was right 1991-1993) and he was keen to get a Williams as he never accepted anything else but outside reasons for his defeats. In 1994 he finally got a Williams, but it was a very different Williams from what he expected. It was an unsorted car that was quite hard to drive on the edge and Senna's winter habit of resting rather than testing backfired immediately and strongly come the season's start in Brazil.

Now, with more than 15 years passed, I would say that Prost and Senna, as different F1 drivers as any two could be, were in 1993 in the respective situations that were so different themselves that they strongly accentuated the difference between the two men. Prost won fair and square, that's what matters and it's impossible to know how the outcome would look like had any or some ar all of the circumstances been different. The very good thing was that the 1993 season spared us the moves we saw in 1989 or 1990.

[COUGAR508]

It is strange that the Williams/McLaren contest in 1993 was portrayed as almost "David versus Goliath", due to the perceived superiority of the Williams car. But as others have said, it was not quite as simple as that. The major difference was the Renault engine. The McLaren's chassis development, electronics and the ability of Senna to wring 100% from the car almost bridged the gap.

If I remember correctly, McLaren decided to use the Ford V8 for 1993 fairly late in the day, and therefore had comparatively little preparation and testing time.

[D.M.N.]

1993 was an interesting season. Anyone remember what happened during the '93 Canadian GP weekend with people questioning the legality of active suspension? That year's Autocourse has a bit on it. 'Tis a bit interesting to say the least.

[lucianoestivill]

Originally posted by Ferrim


Again: it wasn't the same car. Look at the big regulations changes between 1993 and 1994.

You're right my Friend, but you forget to say TWO things, to say the least:

1-In 1993 Prost won against Senna under the same regulations (fair). In 1994 Senna lost against Schumacher and Benetton under the same regulations as well (fair). We can't compare cars from different eras or technical regulations, but in any case, in 1994 Senna had to fight against cars which were built under the same regulations than his sucking FW16.....

2-It was Senna the one who wanted to drive for Williams, as soon as 1991 He realized it was going to be the car to beat and wanted to get it at all cost... Even if that cost implied firing Mansell or Patrese (it was going to be Mansell....). Prost counterstriked politically, He vetoed him, and got the car.... But don't forget (maybe Aloisio, my special Friend, who started this topic, can tell me if I'm right or wrong) Prost had contracts with Williams year after year since 1982 on.... He re-signed his secret contracts with Frank Williams lots of times, and even as soon as He was fired from Ferrari He re-signed again... It seems Prost was waiting for his time to come. For 10 years He had a contract that, sooner or later would pay off. Why Prost shouldn't have vetoed Senna? After all, Senna tested a Williams car in 1983, a year later than Prost signed secretly with Frank Williams by 1982...... He had the priority, and made a good use of it by the time He felt He wanted to win: 1993.
Having said this, Senna wanted the Williams car no matter what. When He got it, there was no more room for whining or loosing. The car was bad? Surely. But it was the car He wanted! He could have choosen a Ferrari, a Minardi, a Benetton, or stayed in McLaren. But He didn't want that. He wanted a Williams.... And He got it....

By the way, an average and still quite novice Hill, almost got 1994 title if not for Schumacher's cheat in Adelaide 94. So it seems that car, in Senna's hands, would have been succesful. It was a matter of waiting up to the things were solved, which happened from Canada on. A time Senna's ego, seemed not to have.... On that specific topic, Prost was clearly ahead: Prost had no problem in waiting for things to be solved and then go for it, but not Senna. If Prost had choosen the "Senna impatient" style early in 1990 with Ferrari, Prost would have had accidents race after race until mid-1990 when most Ferrari problems were solved... He had to wait, it was the best option for Prost in 1990. And it was the best option for Senna in 1994. You can't be the best and the fastest all the time..... Until that time arrives, you have to control yourself and not push to unknown limits, as Senna did in Brazil 1994 (spun off), Aida 1994 (bad start, braking earlier, making Hakkinen crashed in from behind, and assuming Ayrton his own fault for once in his life) and Imola 94 (racing a competence that He didn't want to be in). So in ALL 3 races He took part in 1994, He was partially (or totally) implied in the caused that took him to each failure.... Prost knew in Adelaida 89 that racing there was a dangerous choice, so He didn't race. Ayrton didn't see it that way, and raced. And it happened what it was going to happen: Senna failed. It possible that Prost with that FW16, being uncomfortable or scared, wouldn't have raced or would have taken it very easy. But not Senna. He did something that He wasn't convinced to be the best thing to do, but still did it.... And we know the results....

Stay tunned!!!

Luciano

[lucianoestivill]

Originally posted by zg1972
Prost certainly didn't forget to drive...................
...................saw in 1989 or 1990.

I read ALL your LONG and CLEAR post zg1972, and I couldn't put it any better. Being a Senna Fan myself, I agree on your point of view almost 100%. Words of wisdom.... Finally, someone who can see the light at the end of the tunnel.....

;-)

Luciano

[zg1972]

Originally posted by lucianoestivill


I read ALL your LONG and CLEAR post zg1972, and I couldn't put it any better. Being a Senna Fan myself, I agree on your point of view almost 100%. Words of wisdom buddy.... Finally, someone who can see the light at the end of the tunnel.....

;-)

Luciano

Thank you!

[lucianoestivill]

Originally posted by D.M.N.
1993 was an interesting season. Anyone remember what happened during the '93 Canadian GP weekend with people questioning the legality of active suspension? That year's Autocourse has a bit on it. 'Tis a bit interesting to say the least.

I remember.... They wanted to ban it!. In fact, they arranged everything (FIA) to ban it from the next race (France). A nonsense...... I also remember Canada race which was the most masterful performance by Prost in his final year, being pushed hard along the whole race, and still earning a strong win. James Hunts commentated a F1 race for his last time there in Canada 93, He died soon afterwards, and Prost performance prompted Hunt to say that we had "witnessed the Prost of old" on that day.....

[D.M.N.]

Good.;)

The document and releases in question below was from a report written by Charlie Whiting I believe. Some interesting quotes [in my view] from page 163 of that year's Autocourse:

Unnamed Designer: You might as well screw up those releases and throw them in the wastepaper basket.

Williams Statement: We consider this document to be regrettable in its timing. We sincerely hope the validity of Nigel Mansell's World Drivers' Championship and the Williams-Renault World Constructors' Championship is not called into question. The team's suspension system has been identical for the past 22 Grands Prix - that is since the beginning of the 1992 World Championship - and its conformity with the regulations has never been called into question until today.

Mario Andretti: This isn't a matter of McLaren versus Williams or anybody else. This is a question of saving Grand Prix racing. On Monday morning people will probably open the papers to see Mr Alain Prost won the Canadian Grand Prix by half a lap from Mr Damon Hill, with the third man a lap behind, and they just won't care. Of course Ferrari wants to get rid of all that stuff [driver aids] - they've got it, and they don't know what the hell to do with it.

[DOF_power]

>
^ It didn't need any saving.

The "Mr Alain Prost won the Canadian Grand Prix by half a lap from Mr Damon Hill, with the third man a lap behind"
scenario has happened since 1906 when the first GP took part.
It's just the way it is. Fangio did it, Clark did it, Rosemeyer did it, Nuvolari did it and so forth

Andretti just open his mouth and went with the charity/pampering speech.

[bigears]

Originally posted by D.M.N.
1993 was an interesting season. Anyone remember what happened during the '93 Canadian GP weekend with people questioning the legality of active suspension? That year's Autocourse has a bit on it. 'Tis a bit interesting to say the least.

I remember it was claimed that BMS Scuderia was the only legal car out of the entire grid!

Badoer or Alboreto...? Wishful thinking!

[giacomo]

Originally posted by D.M.N.

Mario Andretti: This isn't a matter of McLaren versus Williams or anybody else. This is a question of saving Grand Prix racing. On Monday morning people will probably open the papers to see Mr Alain Prost won the Canadian Grand Prix by half a lap from Mr Damon Hill, with the third man a lap behind, and they just won't care. Of course Ferrari wants to get rid of all that stuff [driver aids] - they've got it, and they don't know what the hell to do with it.

Seems Andretti forgot that the comparable level of car superiority that gave him his own drivers title did not destroy Grand Prix racing at all.

[RA Historian]

Of course the superiority of the Lotus 79 was due to passive advantages, not active as in the cars in the 1993 era. The aerodynamic advantages of ground effects tunnels were first fully understood by Chapman and he was the first to fully exploit this advantage. That technology was there for all to use and was of a different nature than active suspension, semi-auto gearboxes, and all the other electronic goodies that went into the cars in the 1993 time frame at a great financial cost far beyond that of tunnels in the side pods. Proabably a difference that is open to debate, but a difference in my mind.
Tom

[lucianoestivill]

Originally posted by giacomo

Seems Andretti forgot that the comparable level of car superiority that gave him his own drivers title did not destroy Grand Prix racing at all.

Correct giacomo.... Andretti forgot to say his teammate Ronnie Peterson let him won 4 races (team orders) while Hill NEVER let Prost win a race.... In fact, Prost and Hill had an agreement by which the one of the two who was ahead with 30% of the race to go, would win the race. Not an Peterson-Andretti style victory, or a Barrichello-Schumacher Austria 2002 shameful win...
Andretti almost forgot something much more important: Niki Lauda DESTROYED him in Sweeden 1978 GP, with his Brabham "fan car". What happened? The "fan car" by Gordon Murray was suddenly declared "illegal" (illegal?) and both Lauda and Watson with their Brabhams started to do it worse and worse race after race, letting Andretti to win a dominant title with a little "help" from Ronnie Peterson.....

I guess Mr Piedonne Andretti was a little angry after his son Michel Andretti was doing it very bad with the same car his Teammate Senna managed to put some strong resistance to The Professor..... His words have to be taken into account with too much care.....honestly........ He wasn't telling us the truth... Just doing some lobby for.... McLaren maybe??? MMM... I still remember him in McLaren pits in several occasions in 1993, doing some good "company" to his son Michel Andretti..... He was almost, a Dennis employee...... Just that... His words, mean nothing...



Luciano

[lucianoestivill]

Originally posted by RA Historian
Of course the superiority of the Lotus 79 was due to passive advantages, not active as in the cars in the 1993 era. The aerodynamic advantages of ground effects tunnels were first fully understood by Chapman and he was the first to fully exploit this advantage. That technology was there for all to use and was of a different nature than active suspension, semi-auto gearboxes, and all the other electronic goodies that went into the cars in the 1993 time frame at a great financial cost far beyond that of tunnels in the side pods. Proabably a difference that is open to debate, but a difference in my mind.
Tom

The superiority of his Lotus 79 was due to Brabham "fancar" was banned after Lauda ate Andretti and everybody else in the Swedish 78 GP...... Don't forget that, RA Historian....

[giacomo]

Originally posted by RA Historian
Of course the superiority of the Lotus 79 was due to passive advantages, not active as in the cars in the 1993 era. The aerodynamic advantages of ground effects tunnels were first fully understood by Chapman and he was the first to fully exploit this advantage. That technology was there for all to use and was of a different nature than active suspension, semi-auto gearboxes, and all the other electronic goodies that went into the cars in the 1993 time frame at a great financial cost far beyond that of tunnels in the side pods. Proabably a difference that is open to debate, but a difference in my mind.
Tom

I didn't equal the technology of the '78 Lotus with that of the '93 Williams (of course not). I equalled their level of superiority.

[Zippel]

Originally posted by lucianoestivill


In 1994 Senna lost against Schumacher and Benetton under the same regulations as well (fair).

Uh, have you read up on Benetton's dealings that season? They certainly weren't racing under the same regulations. The illegal software in the car and fuel rig (which allowed Schumacher to pass Senna in the pits in Brazil) being the main discrepancies.

[D-Type]

Basically Frank Williams had the choice of signing Prost or Senna as effectively neither would tolerate the other in the same team. And he chose Prost. Presumably in his informed judgement Prost was the better choice.

Folks, please show a little decorum and don't let this thread descend into a fanboyz shouting match (ie "My man's better than your man because ...")

[RA Historian]

Originally posted by lucianoestivill


The superiority of his Lotus 79 was due to Brabham "fancar" was banned after Lauda kicked his ass in Swedish 78 GP...... Don't forget pal....

Gee, such a friendly response. But remember that Lauda was in a car that had movable aerodynamic devices which were later banned. The Lotus 79 did not have fans. Not a valid comparison. Sorry.

[RA Historian]

Originally posted by lucianoestivill
Andretti forgot to say his teammate Ronnie Peterson let him won 4 races (team orders)
Luciano

Sorry Luciano, utter nonsense. Been debated ad nauseum, so I will not go into details here. But the truth of the matter is not as you seem to want to see it.

[RA Historian]

Originally posted by lucianoestivill
his sucking son Michel Andretti
Luciano

A little decorum would be appreciated, Luciano. Anyone who makes it to F-1, gets a podium, receives support and praise from Senna, does not merit the vulgarism "sucks".

Apparently you are new on this forum. Please be aware that a little courtesy and the absence of name calling and vulgarity goes a long way. You will get along much better with other posters if you just try to remember that we are all enthusiasts, we all like the old days, and we all have are own opinions as to the way we view matters. If you keep those thoughts in mind and respond to posts, even those with which you do not agree, with a certain degree of civility, you will get along fine.

[lucianoestivill]

Originally posted by RA Historian
Sorry Luciano, utter nonsense. Been debated ad nauseum, so I will not go into details here. But the truth of the matter is not as you seem to want to see it.

I wouldn't disregard an opinion as a "nonsense", specially when I'm talking about real facts, no "would have been" or "could have happened" facts, but certain things. What I want to see here is exactly what you don't want to: Mr Mario Andretti, was doing lobby by 1993 for McLaren, as simple as that.... When his son was almost fired, He shut up a little bit fortunately.... It's a fact Ferrari and McLaren wanted Williams active suspension to be banned.... for no reason (Ohh yeah, there was a reason: McLaren had a much more drivable car without electronic aids and active suspension compared to Williams FW15C, as it's clear after what happened in 1994 with the FW16 car: very very difficult to drive......).
FIA (influenced by Ferrari and Dennis) tried to make Williams active suspension be banned with ridiculous charges. So ridiculous that all teams in F1 except one, would have been also declared illegal.... It lasted just a couple of weeks, then the disgraceful desition by FIA was totally forgotten, and all come to a big political failure.....

[lucianoestivill]

Originally posted by Zippel


Uh, have you read up on Benetton's dealings that season? They certainly weren't racing under the same regulations. The illegal software in the car and fuel rig (which allowed Schumacher to pass Senna in the pits in Brazil) being the main discrepancies.

Maybe the illegal software (launch control in fact) existed, and so the fuel rig, but the case is that for FIA seemed to be just a fairytale: Benetton was DSQ and punished later in 1994 season, and not because of that "illegal software in the car and fuel rig". Nothing was proved with certainty, otherwise they would have declared those things illegal, which it never occured....

[lucianoestivill]

Originally posted by RA Historian
Gee, such a friendly response. But remember that Lauda was in a car that had movable aerodynamic devices which were later banned. The Lotus 79 did not have fans. Not a valid comparison. Sorry.

I don't agree RA Historian, I'm sorry: The comparisson is more than valid: FISA/FOCA and all teams in F1 knew the developement by Murray on the "fancar". The car seemed to be legal up to the conclusive win by Lauda. Then, suddenly, it was declared "illegal".... You wrote it by yourself RA Historian: "But remember that Lauda was in a car that had movable aerodynamic devices which were later banned". You're right: it was LATER banned... Why LATER? They realised there was a car on the circuit with a fan at the back on the day the race took place? Nope. The fan was there, and no serious rejections until its stratospheric victory. If the car had finished the race at the back, nobody would have cared about that fan..... But the car won. And both Chapman and Ferrari made their best to make it desappear.....
What happened in 1993 trying to ban active suspensions due to be "illegal" is exactly the same: nobody realised there were more than 20 machines running "illegaly" from 1992 on? Suddenly, in Canada, a genius appeared and said: "ALL that is ILLEGAL!" Come on!!!. Just politics..... McLaren had a lot to do with that attempt to ban it....

As some other fellow here said, I don't think some superiority by a car determines the "dead of F1", that's wrong. Maybe, what can cause a "dead in F1" is having races like the ones we have nowadays..... But that's another story for another day, and for another topic....

Regards

Luciano

[lucianoestivill]

Originally posted by RA Historian
A little decorum would be appreciated, Luciano. Anyone who makes it to F-1, gets a podium, receives support and praise from Senna, does not merit the vulgarism "sucks".

Apparently you are new on this forum. Please be aware that a little courtesy and the absence of name calling and vulgarity goes a long way. You will get along much better with other posters if you just try to remember that we are all enthusiasts, we all like the old days, and we all have are own opinions as to the way we view matters. If you keep those thoughts in mind and respond to posts, even those with which you do not agree, with a certain degree of civility, you will get along fine.

I don't disregard the opinion of anybody, as is clearly seen in my posts.... Courtesy and politeness is the path I always follow, here and on my private life, so I want to be seen as a respectful poster.

If someone was offended, I'd particularly appreciate to be told about it, and specially where, when, and how I offended or made some use of vulgarity, so as to apologize, which I do here and now with utmost respect to you RS Historian if you feel I behaved incorrectly.

I'd also appreciate that, if I make a comment that you don't agree with, please try to avoid as much as possible words like "utter nonsense" or those unkind ways of express a disagreement....

All my concern and kind contributtion if required, and go back to 1993 notable season!

Peace

Luciano

PS: since I'm not an english native speaker, sometimes I don't understand certain phrases or words. What does "absence of name calling" means? Many thanks.

[Zippel]

Originally posted by lucianoestivill


Maybe the illegal software (launch control in fact) existed, and so the fuel rig, but the case is that for FIA seemed to be just a fairytale: Benetton was DSQ and punished later in 1994 season, and not because of that "illegal software in the car and fuel rig". Nothing was proved with certainty, otherwise they would have declared those things illegal, which it never occured....

Benetton got off on a technicality with the software as it couldn't be proven it was used during the race, which is stupid considering the FIA's inconsistent interpretation of the rules in later cases of cheating.

The fuel rig incident the FIA accused Benetton of tampering with but then Mosley rigged the hearing into the case by advising Benetton's Lawyer beforehand to plead guilty and thereby escape penalty.

http://www.grandprix...ns/ns00353.html

[lucianoestivill]

Originally posted by Zippel


Benetton got off on a technicality with the software as it couldn't be proven it was used during the race, which is stupid considering the FIA's inconsistent interpretation of the rules in later cases of cheating.

The fuel rig incident the FIA accused Benetton of tampering with but then Mosley rigged the hearing into the case by advising Benetton's Lawyer beforehand to plead guilty and thereby escape penalty.

http://www.grandprix...ns/ns00353.html

Hi Zippel, that's totally correct. As a consequence, and it's a general rule in law investigation, that what wasn't proved legally, doesn't exist, has no entity. I'm pretty sure Benetton was cheating at the time but.... as the launch control was not in fact "discovered" (on a legal point of view, OK?, because we all know that it existed...) it's as if nothing had happened.
In regard to the rig, it's again one of those things plenty of controversy; such a controversy that, as you correctly said, gave the possibility to Mosley of advicing Benetton on what to do to avoid a penalty......

Your quote in fact emphasized what I'm trying to say: nowadays or in the past, FIA/FISA/FOCA, teams, technicians and even drivers, knew and still know who is who there, but they discover the "illegal" right after a win occurred.... Why?

[DOF_power]

Originally posted by lucianoestivill


I don't agree buddy, I'm sorry: The comparisson is more than valid: FISA/FOCA and all teams in F1 knew the developement by Murray on the "fancar". The car seemed to be legal up to the conclusive win by Lauda. Then, suddenly, it was declared "illegal".... You wrote it by yourself RA Historian buddy: "But remember that Lauda was in a car that had movable aerodynamic devices which were later banned". You're right: it was LATER banned... Why LATER? They realised there was a car on the circuit with a fan at the back on the day the race took place? Nope. The fan was there, and no serious rejections until its stratospheric victory. If the car had finished the race at the back, nobody would have cared about that fan..... But the car won. And both Chapman and Ferrari made their best to make it desappear.....
What happened in 1993 trying to ban active suspensions due to be "illegal" is exactly the same: nobody realised there were more than 20 machines running "illegaly" from 1992 on? Suddenly, in Canada, a genius appeared and said: "ALL that is ILLEGAL!" Come on!!!. Just politics..... McLaren had a lot to do with that attempt to ban it....

As some other fellow here said, I don't think some superiority by a car determines the "dead of F1", that's wrong. Maybe, what can cause a "dead in F1" is having races like the ones we have nowadays..... But that's another story for another day, and for another topic....

Regards

Luciano

That's true. Politics since the 70s have damaged/destroyed Grand Prix racing.

[zg1972]

Originally posted by DOF_power

That's true. Politics since the 70s have damaged/destroyed Grand Prix racing.

In a way, it resembled an attempt by Tyrell in 1984 to declare all the turbocharged cars illegal, on the ground that regulations permitted supercharging and that turbocharging and supercharging (by means of a mechanical compressor) is not the same thing. I always held the position that turbocharging is merely a specific form of supercharging and that "supercharging" by the very origin of the word must be a word valid to describe all systems (using belts, chains, gears, exhaust gases, whatever) that force more air into cylinders than would enter by relying solely on atmospheric pressure. I never read the FISA regulation s of the period, though, and I'm not familiar with the wording. Considering how the FISA panicked and DSQ'd Tyrrell from the whole season, it may be that Tyrrell had something up his sleeve.

[Tim Murray]

Originally posted by lucianoestivill
... so I want to be seen as a respectful poster.

Luciano, if you start addressing other people as 'buddy' or 'pal', when quite clearly you do not regard them as your friend, you will be seen by many people here as rude and aggressive. (In some parts of Britain, to call somebody 'pal' in such a manner will probably get you a fist in the face). To then complain when someone describes your views as 'utter nonsense' is somewhat hypocritical.

Originally posted by lucianoestivill
If someone was offended, I'd particularly appreciate to be told about it, and specially where, when, and how I offended or made some use of vulgarity, so as to apologize, which I do here and now with utmost respect to you RA Historian if you feel I behaved incorrectly.