279 replies to this topic

[Cornholio]

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.     

 

I think the whole "winning at the slowest possible speed" thing was a myth or at least exaggerated, until the modern era of safety cars combined with tyre and/or energy management.

 

In the past, it was actually sensible to build up a good cushion if you could, to cover off things like punctures, other non-terminal delays. For instance had Mansell gone a bit harder in Monaco '92 he'd have still been ahead of Senna even after his incident. And even when fuel management was important (e.g. mid-80s) it could still be a legitimate strategy to go hard early to give yourself a cushion, then if you had to ease up later you had a margin to play with. Do that nowadays you are just an SC away from having your lead erased to nothing and then having to go slower late on with no gap to defend.

 

How that explains a four minute gap, well chances are Stewart was driving well within himself late on and still quick enough to have that gap. And then there's the old thing that if you ease up too much you risk breaking concentration and actually increasing your chances of an off.

[Dicun]

 

Well the Williams was vastly superior throughout the season, so in those circumstances of course the narrative is to see Donington as the anomaly and praise Senna's flawless performance in it, whilst Imola is seen more as the standard way a 1993 race would play out, even if it was wet.

 

I don't recall the specifics of the Imola race, however, I'm just trusting your summary of it.

 

 

I see your point.

 

It is important to add though that this narrative of the Williams being a vastly superior rocketship with which anyone could and should score win after win was very frustrating for Prost. In fact, he claimed it was his least favourite car to drive in his entire career - he hated the active suspension, the anti-lock brakes and all those other electronic aids he felt were reducing his input in driving and developing the car - and quite rightly so, we might add. The whole team and the cars were too reliant on electronics and computers - an approach which yielded such disastrous races as the one at Donington. He never felt truly comfortable in the FW15C and would have preferred to drive a car more like the FW16. 

[Collombin]

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

The same is true of the Piquet overtake on Senna in Hungary. I don't recall anybody getting overly excited about it at the time.

[Anuity]

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.

 

He also said it was "a great, fantastic race, a dream".

[cpbell]

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.

IIRC, Damon said after the event that the reason he made so many mistakes in '95 was that he knew that, with Schumacher now using a Renault engine, the inherent advantage he'd had in '94 (once Newey redesigned the Williams to eliminate the aerodynamic instability) was gone, and that this would show-up William's inferior strategic ability, hence he overdrove the car.  As has already been mentioned, Damon was a smooth driver, and they never do as well when they try to overdrive the car.

[cpbell]

 

I'm not sure about that. Fangio and Clark were silky smooth drivers applying an unspectacular driving style yet they are admired and their names always come up in GOAT-discussions. Prost, on the other hand...

 

The whole thing is quite baffling, really 

They put in notable amazing drives, though - two of which were at the Nordschliefe.  Alain didn't allow himself to dominate in such a notable (or noticeable) manner; he was just really good consistently. 

[SCUDmissile]

Just came up on my YouTube, but what about Rubens at Hockenheim 2000?

That was a great drive.

[ensign14]

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

 

I like to think someone is paying attention...

 

...anyone noticed this week's pic in the Who, What, When, and Where section on the last page of the issue? 

[Touchdown]

Just came up on my YouTube, but what about Rubens at Hockenheim 2000?

That was a great drive.

Without the SC and the rain shower Barrichello would have been a distant third, which is what you would have expected that day with that car.

 

Good drive, yes, but I don't think it was particularly special.

[as65p]

 

I don't recall the specifics of the Imola race, however, I'm just trusting your summary of it.

 

Well, you really shouldn't. The track was damp only at the start and for the first 7 or so laps, nothing like Donington. Prost spend most of those laps unable to get by Senna despite a visibly faster car (no wonder on this power track). When he finally powered past up the hill, Damon Hill had build a gap of 8 secs. The track was dry enough for slicks after 8 laps, and from there on the Williams dominated as they should.

[Atreiu]

Without the SC and the rain shower Barrichello would have been a distant third, which is what you would have expected that day with that car.

 

Good drive, yes, but I don't think it was particularly special.

 

 

Everything with Barrichello was hyper emotional.

 

His Silverstone 2003 weekend is another prime example.

[Dicun]

Well, you really shouldn't. The track was damp only at the start and for the first 7 or so laps, nothing like Donington. Prost spend most of those laps unable to get by Senna despite a visibly faster car (no wonder on this power track). When he finally powered past up the hill, Damon Hill had build a gap of 8 secs. The track was dry enough for slicks after 8 laps, and from there on the Williams dominated as they should.

 

Prost passed Senna on a damp track, period. If you still deny it, then:

 

 

This is the lap before Prost gets past.

 

 

This is right before Tosa the next lap, just before Senna getting passed by Prost. The track drives almost 20 seconds slower than the pole lap time (1:22.070).

 

 

Moments later, right after Tosa, Senna getting passed. Prost's onboard camera is blurry because of the water from the track.

 

 

Prost's car has a spray of water behind it as he passes Senna on the wet track.

 

 

Prost now ahead of Senna. Those different shades of grey on the tarmac clearly show there's still water on the road.

 

As for Donington, let me quote Murray Walker from during lap 4: "It's not going to be very long before people come in for tyres. The sun is really shining now and the wind is continuing to blow, so the circuit is drying out rapidly."

 

And on lap 7, Brundle changes for slicks:

 

 

 

So, I reiterate my statement: Donington and Imola were identical in terms of weather conditions for the first dozen or so laps. Meaning, not torrential rain, but on a wet, greasy, slippery track that drove significantly slower than the normal dry pace. At Donington, Senna was flying and overtook the two Williams, and two weeks later it was Prost who overtook him in identical conditions. Nobody will be a lesser fan of Ayrton if they admit that this was the case.

 

Case in point: either Donington wasn't as wet as it so frequently is claimed to be the case by posterity, or Imola was just as tricky and slippery at the beginning of the race as Donington was. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Edited by Dicun, 19 April 2019 - 08:56.

[PayasYouRace]

When you're in possession of such a good selection of factual evidence, dicun, there's no need to be a sarcastic dick about it.

Your tone aside, that is a good, in depth bit a research.

Edit: Nicely changed.

[Dicun]

When you're in possession of such a good selection of factual evidence, dicun, there's no need to be a sarcastic dick about it.

 

Your tone aside, that is a good, in depth bit a research.

 

Noikeee wrote he trusted my summary about 1993 Imola and the answer was "well, you really shouldn't."

 

I'm not really keen on being accused of lying, hence the sarcasm.

[TennisUK]

I'd rate Jenson's 2011 Japan or 2012 Spa win ahead of Canada 2011 (as entertaining as that was).

 

Clark's 1967 Monza is surely on the list. 

 

Schumacher 1996 at Barcelona.

 

Villeneuve Spain 1981.

 

Hill was pretty great in Suzuka 1994.

 

Hamilton 2008 Silverstone.

 

Stewart Spa 1968

 

Clark Spa 1963, Monza 1967

 

Senna Suzuka 1988, Estoril 1985, Interlagos 1991

 

I always thought Boutsen drove a great race in Hungary in 1990. Kept a cool head under pressure while everyone behind lost theirs.

[Collombin]

For a guy sometimes labelled in the winning at the slowest possible speed category, I think Prost's Suzuka 1987 is well worth a mention - coming 7th at the fastest possible speed.

[ensign14]

I always thought Boutsen drove a great race in Hungary in 1990. Kept a cool head under pressure while everyone behind lost theirs.

 

I'm not sure they ALL did, there seemed to be a lot of Senna being Senna all the way up to second.  Story was he didn't do the same to Boutsen because he liked him.

[P123]

Noikeee wrote he trusted my summary about 1993 Imola and the answer was "well, you really shouldn't."
 
I'm not really keen on being accused of lying, hence the sarcasm.

With the small caveat that the McLaren qualified 2s off of the Williams, which is positively the B-Class territory some lose their heads over these days. Although you may be proving that Prost could pass Senna in the wet, who was performing more impressively? Prost who was 10s behind his teammate, or Senna who was 15s up the road after 7 laps from the similarly paced Benetton.

[Henri Greuter]

I'm not sure they ALL did, there seemed to be a lot of Senna being Senna all the way up to second.  Story was he didn't do the same to Boutsen because he liked him.

 

 

 

And maybe, just maybe, there was also the concern about his mind that he had already caused a retirement for an innocent fellow competitor already! Had he taken out yet another one in order to gain the lead might have had more repercussions......

I also wonder if he maybe got a radio signal from the pits to be careful: What had worked for him with Nannini (at the expense of Alessandro) had failed for Berger who had to retire when he had made a similar move on Mansell that caused both men to retire!  (Senna `knew` better how to `execute` things properly ....   ) Maybe the McLaren Team gave him a warning not to take too many risks anymore and settle for a safe second, the more while Prost had retired....

Edited by Henri Greuter, 19 April 2019 - 13:29.

[Henri Greuter]

With the small caveat that the McLaren qualified 2s off of the Williams, which is positively the B-Class territory some lose their heads over these days. Although you may be proving that Prost could pass Senna in the wet, who was performing more impressively? Prost who was 10s behind his teammate, or Senna who was 15s up the road after 7 laps from the similarly paced Benetton.

 

 

Mclaren had traction control that day, Benetton not yet......

[Dicun]

With the small caveat that the McLaren qualified 2s off of the Williams, which is positively the B-Class territory some lose their heads over these days. Although you may be proving that Prost could pass Senna in the wet, who was performing more impressively? Prost who was 10s behind his teammate, or Senna who was 15s up the road after 7 laps from the similarly paced Benetton.

 

I didn't talk about individual performance comparisons. My argument was that the two races were started in similar conditions - and I was accused of lying for that.

 

I'm not going to get lured into another pointless Prost vs Senna debate, I simply wanted to point out that merely two weeks after Donington where supposedly the two Williams were destroyed by Senna's pure pace in the torrential rain, Imola showed a different picture because the two Williams were this time correctly set up for the conditions – which were pretty much identical to those of Donington.

[as65p]

I didn't talk about individual performance comparisons. My argument was that the two races were started in similar conditions - and I was accused of lying for that.

 

Your lie is the  attempt to make the conditions in those two races similar, which they weren't. Donington was wet-drying-wet-drying-wet throughout, whereas in Imola only the first 8 to 10 laps were held in wet/damp conditions. The other glaring difference, as already pointed out, is that in Imola Williams car advantage was far more pronounced due to the nature of this power track.

 

Even so, Prost got stuck behind Senna at the start and it took him 6 or so laps to get by, by which time Hill was 8 secs up the road. When the track was completely dried out, obviously nobody could hold a candle to the Williams anymore.

 

Yet you try to make if sound as if Prost reversed the Donington situation in Imola, which is hilarious, given the actual circumstances of the two races. You do wonder why the Imola race is "largely forgotten", and the anwser to that is obvious. Apart form a few fun laps at the start when Prost found no way to use his car advantage, it was an utterly average Grand Prix with the fastest car by miles winning.

 

Here's the first part of the race for anyone interested, start is around 6:00.

Edited by as65p, 19 April 2019 - 15:50.

[Dicun]

Your lie

 

You already lost any interest and willingness to answer I had left for your posts at this point. Congratulations, I guess.

 

I refuse to deal with disrespectful and pugnacious individuals such as yourself. There are quite a few Senna supporters here, like Jim (sennafan24), whom you should learn a thing or to from. In before you mistakenly think: it's not that I couldn't respond to your post and challenge your arguments. It's about choosing not to waste any more of my time on you, my good man. 

 

All the best.

[realracer200]

 

Prost now ahead of Senna. Those different shades of grey on the tarmac clearly show there's still water on the road.

 

Water on the road, like where? Quite clearly most of the track is completely dry.

[Anuity]

 

 

 

So, I reiterate my statement: Donington and Imola were identical in terms of weather conditions for the first dozen or so laps.

 

 

 

It is very clear from the all the available video footage that conditions were drastically different. The videos are readily available on youtube. Imola was a drying track right away.

[as65p]

You already lost any interest and willingness to answer I had left for your posts at this point. Congratulations, I guess.

 

I refuse to deal with disrespectful and pugnacious individuals such as yourself. There are quite a few Senna supporters here, like Jim (sennafan24), whom you should learn a thing or to from. In before you mistakenly think: it's not that I couldn't respond to your post and challenge your arguments. It's about choosing not to waste any more of my time on you, my good man. 

You should inded not waste any time on me, but rather on getting your facts straight, such time would be far better spent.

[Dicun]

It is very clear from the all the available video footage that conditions were drastically different. The videos are readily available on youtube. Imola was a drying track right away.

 

Murray Walker commented during the 4th lap of the Donington race that the track was rapidly drying and Brundle changed tyres as early as the 7th lap. The amount of water on the track was identical in both races in the first dozen or so laps. I explained this in detail, showed pictures of the damp track and the onboard camera of Prost being blurred from water, quoted Walker and lap times to back my claim up. You guys, on the other hand, provided no factual arguments just kept adamantly repeating that the conditions were different but gave no data nor any explanation to back this claims up, ignoring such details contradicting your opinion like drivers changing tyres sooner at Donington which according to you was supposed to be wetter than Imola in the first 10-12 laps.

 

But I really have no interest in keep repeating my arguments and fighting this Don Quixotesque battle when all that comes back is "but the conditions were different". This, for me, is not a discussion worth continuing at all.

 

Keep believing whatever you want, guys 

[Anuity]

Murray Walker commented during the 4th lap of the Donington race that the track was rapidly drying and Brundle changed tyres as early as the 7th lap. The amount of water on the track was identical in both races in the first dozen or so laps. I explained this in detail, showed pictures of the damp track and the onboard camera of Prost being blurred from water, quoted Walker and lap times to back my claim up. You guys, on the other hand, provided no factual arguments just kept adamantly repeating that the conditions were different but gave no data nor any explanation to back this claims up, ignoring such details contradicting your opinion like drivers changing tyres sooner at Donington which according to you was supposed to be wetter than Imola in the first 10-12 laps.

 

But I really have no interest in keep repeating my arguments and fighting this Don Quixotesque battle when all that comes back is "but the conditions were different". This, for me, is not a discussion worth continuing at all.

 

Keep believing whatever you want, guys 

 

 

 

There is no need in pictures, you can clearly see from onboards/other angles (which explains you everything much better than any picture) that conditions are not the same.

The blurred camera and wet tracks are very different things. I am not sure what point are you trying to make or what races you have watched, because it's pretty clear.

[as65p]

Keep believing whatever you want, guys 

There is nothing to "believe". Everyone with an internet connection can watch the relevant footage for himself. Which makes attempts to re-write history all the more puzzling.

[PlatenGlass]

I know that this is a bit of a tangent but probably the most exciting part of the 1993 San Marino GP wasn't seen on TV. Hill had just made his stop for dry tyres, and the order was Hill, Senna, Prost all in close order. Then they cut away for Alesi's stop and when they go back the order is reversed. 17:45:



Edit - It's on the review video though. Prost passes them both out of Tosa and Senna then passes Hill. Decent pass by Prost!

Edited by PlatenGlass, 19 April 2019 - 21:51.