41 replies to this topic

[shaggy]

Does anyone have the info to compare Sennas's times against his 3 teammates (i.e. Prost, Berger and Andretti) ?

I ask this question for 2 reasons :

1. Just for the sake of knowledge and to satisfy a curiosity.

I have read comments in the past which stated that Senna beat Prost by an average of 1 second. In 88 and 89, Senna outqualified Prost 14-2 and 16-2 (or something like that), so, Senna certainly had Prost's number. I have also read that Berger outqualified Senna 8 times, which appears to be better than what Prost did, and yet Prost certainly was better than Berger, right ?

2. The other reason has to do with Michael Andretti ... ... Now, don't get all bent out of shape, I was never much of a fan of Michael .. mainly because he was Emmo's and Little Al's biggest threat (they were my favorite drivers and so I considered Michael to be the "enemy").

Now, I read that, last year, Dario outqualified Michael by no more than 0.4 seconds in the road courses - including a 'weird' 3 second gap at Cleveland. If you remove that race, then, the gap drops to about 0.26 seconds. If that is the case, and remember that Dario outqualified Juan, it does say quite a bit about Michael's speed, doesn't it ? After all, he is almost 40 years old while Juan and Dario are only 26 to 27.

i would like to see how Michael fared against Senna in comparison to how Berger and Prost fared against him. In fact, is it true that Prost outqualified Hill by about a second or so - if that is the case, then, Damon didn't do much better against Prost than Michael against Senna.

Again, these are all things I have read but, sadly, I do not have the statistics with me so that I can check every single comment; if any of you have the data available, I would greatly appreciate your response.

Thanks in advance.

shaggy

P.S. All my respect to Senna, but, Emmo was and forever and ever will be the BEST race driver of all time. Besides, Emmo was and continues to be a true gentleman - which is something that just cannot be said about any of today's drivers, or about most of today's athletes.

[Arrow]

Its weird but berger was in fact closer to senna in qualifying that prost was.I dont know why because prost would of outclassed berger easily.

In 88 prost was about 4 tenths behind senna but in 89 is was .900 of a second probably because honda started to favour senna for most of the season.
In 1990 berger outqualifyed senna 4 times and was on average .281 behind him,if i remember correctly.I worked it out a long time ago but it was around 3 tenths.
In 91 and 92 it blew out to .500 or something.

I think berger is underrated.In his prime in the late 80s early 90s he was probably the best driver behind the big 3 of the era.

[palmas]

Originally posted by Arrow
I think berger is underrated.In his prime in the late 80s early 90s he was probably the best driver behind the big 3 of the era.

As Berger himself said "I'm only as good as my results show".

[SeanValen]

Maybe Prost was ahead of the game, and concentrated giving his all in races where it counts, and concentrate on race set ups more, but Senna was too fast in qualifying, 1 second advantages, wow, amazing, the best, but Prost did make his races work out, smartly so, so I definately would like a full interview done with Prost to how he treated his race weekend.

Prost also came out as a very cautious driver, only sometimes I thought in races where Senna pushed him we saw Prost's speed, he definately hated rain, showing his cautious behaviour at times in the race, he was not prepared to go to some limits, took less risks then Senna, but sometimes this is the prudent and works out for some drivers like Prost.

[Vrba]

Prost knew that he was unlikely to beat Senna in qualifying, for various reasons. In that situation, I think it is possible to assume that he needed not push too hard in situations in which he was almost sure to be on the outside of row 1 due to car advantage.
Noone ever doubted Senna's speed in qualifying (i'd like to but I'm short of facts :-)) but as I always say, qualifying is here simply because the track is too narrow for all the cars to start abreast and it is not the ultimate measure of a driver's speed.
Lauda had no poles in 1984 and always or at least in most of races qualified behind Prost with probably bigger difference than Prost had to Senna in 1988 or 1989 and nevertheless won the title.
Races count. Take a look at fastest laps statistics. Really fast drivers drive fast only when necessary.

Hrvoje

[F1Johnny]

Prost was not a qualifier. He focused on race set up each weekend. Lauda was of the same mold. Berger was more aggressive over a lap than Prost. In fact Berger got the pole in his first McLaren race in Phoenix 1990 over Senna. Of course Senna beat Alesi to the win.

Berger was very good, but did not take the sport as seriously as a Senna, Prost or Schumacher. he loved the lifestyle.

Andretti never had a chance in hell.

Both Prost and Berger are underated drivers. If Berger had timed his moves properly, he could have been WDC. He never drove for Williams and he was faster than DH. Prost - his record speaks for itself, but he doesn't get the respect he deserves.

[JPMCrew]

Originally posted by Vrba
Prost knew that he was unlikely to beat Senna in qualifying, for various reasons.

The only reason I can think of is that Senna was quicker than him

In that situation, I think it is possible to assume that he needed not push too hard in situations in which he was almost sure to be on the outside of row 1 due to car advantage.

He was on the outside of row 1 because he wasn't as quick as the guy on the inside. He knew this and he knew he couldn't overcome the difference during qualifying.

Noone ever doubted Senna's speed in qualifying (i'd like to but I'm short of facts :-)) but as I always say, qualifying is here simply because the track is too narrow for all the cars to start abreast and it is not the ultimate measure of a driver's speed.

Actually, qualifying is the ultimate measure of a driver's speed unless extra curricular activities hinder his performance. As Senna himself said, during the race there is luck involved.

Lauda had no poles in 1984 and always or at least in most of races qualified behind Prost with probably bigger difference than Prost had to Senna in 1988 or 1989 and nevertheless won the title.
Races count. Take a look at fastest laps statistics. Really fast drivers drive fast only when necessary.

Races do count of course; but very often the outcome of a race will be pre-determined by qualifying. Qualifying counts as much as the race even if you don't get any points for it.

[Simioni]

Of the 8 times Berger outqualified Senna, at least 2 were flukes: His first pole at phoenix came because saturday qualifying was washed out, hence Senna who had electrical problems on friday was relegated to fifth, behind not only Berger, but Martini´s minardi, De Cesaris´Dallara and Alesi´s tyrrel, while top drivers like Prost and Mansell were back in 7th and 17th spot. In Mexico 92 Berger qualified ahead because Senna had injured his legs after a shunt on friday.

Berger was in great shape at the end of 1991, but the fact that he managed to outqualify Senna three times consecutively while Senna was battling for the championship suggests that after Monza AS had all his sights set on Mansell in order to prevent him from winning, a strategy succesfully employed in the Suzuka showdown. At that race, Berger qualified on pole and opened up a large gap while Senna was holding back Mansell. Once Nigel was out, Senna caught up and passed the austrian within a few laps.

Prost in the other hand had no such luck, as the few times in which he outqualified Senna he did so on merit (twice in 88, twice in 89). If we only consider 6 of Berger´s successes we get the same average, twice per season. The idea of the young Berger being as quick as Prost in qualifying is not at all faulty: At ferrari, Berger outqualified Mansell 8 out 15 times in 89 (he missed monaco after his crash in Imola), while Prost got the same 8 out of 16 times. When Berger was chosen to replace Prost at mclaren he was a proven top driver of aknowledged reputation. He wasn´t picked to be no2 for Senna, though it obviously ended up being that way. The problem is that after being demolished by Senna for three seasons and a "cruise and collect" end to his career, he´s seen in a lesser light than his talent deserves. When the circunstances was right he could beat anyone, as he did in his last win at hockenheim 97, at 37 years of age.

[Rediscoveryx]

Even though Senna was a better qualifier than Prost, the difference between the two was definately not .900 seconds as in 1989. Prost was much closer in 1988, though obviously not close enough, so basically he used the same trick thast Lauda had used on him back in 1984. He gave up on qualifying and concentrated on finding his race setup, so when Senna was out there trying to improve on his pole time, Prost would try out new setups for the race.

Remember that Prost outqualified Mansell regularly at Ferrari, and he absolutely dominated Lauda at McLaren (in qualifying).

Berger was a great qualifier, always 100% commited and aggresive

[911]

Originally posted by Simioni
Of the 8 times Berger outqualified Senna, at least 2 were flukes: His first pole at phoenix came because saturday qualifying was washed out, hence Senna who had electrical problems on friday was relegated to fifth, behind not only Berger, but Martini´s minardi, De Cesaris´Dallara and Alesi´s tyrrel, while top drivers like Prost and Mansell were back in 7th and 17th spot. In Mexico 92 Berger qualified ahead because Senna had injured his legs after a shunt on friday.

Berger was in great shape at the end of 1991, but the fact that he managed to outqualify Senna three times consecutively while Senna was battling for the championship suggests that after Monza AS had all his sights set on Mansell in order to prevent him from winning, a strategy succesfully employed in the Suzuka showdown. At that race, Berger qualified on pole and opened up a large gap while Senna was holding back Mansell. Once Nigel was out, Senna caught up and passed the austrian within a few laps.

Prost in the other hand had no such luck, as the few times in which he outqualified Senna he did so on merit (twice in 88, twice in 89). If we only consider 6 of Berger´s successes we get the same average, twice per season. The idea of the young Berger being as quick as Prost in qualifying is not at all faulty: At ferrari, Berger outqualified Mansell 8 out 15 times in 89 (he missed monaco after his crash in Imola), while Prost got the same 8 out of 16 times. When Berger was chosen to replace Prost at mclaren he was a proven top driver of aknowledged reputation. He wasn´t picked to be no2 for Senna, though it obviously ended up being that way. The problem is that after being demolished by Senna for three seasons and a "cruise and collect" end to his career, he´s seen in a lesser light than his talent deserves. When the circunstances was right he could beat anyone, as he did in his last win at hockenheim 97, at 37 years of age.

Very well said, or written!

[Schummy]

It's less well known that Prost outperform Senna in Fastest Lap in theirs two years in McLaren:

1988: Prost 10, Senna 6
1989: Prost 10, Senna 5 (Prost withdrew in Australia, 10-6 if you count that)

Also, we know Prost outscored Senna both in 88 and 89's total points table (obviously Senna won in 1988 for three points, with 11 best results)

I think Prost was somewhat better in Sunday's race. Senna was a master in qualify. But I don't think qualify is most significant than race, it never was like that in F1. WDCs are got on Sundays not on Saturdays, this is not hillclimb and you need racecraftness and that bit of strategy and mechanichal sympathy.

Senna was awesome, one of the greatest, but so is Prost too.

[SeanValen]

Originally posted by Schummy
It's less well known that Prost outperform Senna in Fastest Lap in theirs two years in McLaren:

1988: Prost 10, Senna 6
1989: Prost 10, Senna 5 (Prost withdrew in Australia, 10-6 if you count that)

Also, we know Prost outscored Senna both in 88 and 89's total points table (obviously Senna won in 1988 for three points, with 11 best results)

I think Prost was somewhat better in Sunday's race. Senna was a master in qualify. But I don't think qualify is most significant than race, it never was like that in F1. WDCs are got on Sundays not on Saturdays, this is not hillclimb and you need racecraftness and that bit of strategy and mechanichal sympathy.

Senna was awesome, one of the greatest, but so is Prost too.

[Rene]

Awesome post Schummy

[Simioni]

Originally posted by Schummy
It's less well known that Prost outperform Senna in Fastest Lap in theirs two years in McLaren:

1988: Prost 10, Senna 6
1989: Prost 10, Senna 5 (Prost withdrew in Australia, 10-6 if you count that)

Also, we know Prost outscored Senna both in 88 and 89's total points table (obviously Senna won in 1988 for three points, with 11 best results)

I think Prost was somewhat better in Sunday's race. Senna was a master in qualify. But I don't think qualify is most significant than race, it never was like that in F1. WDCs are got on Sundays not on Saturdays, this is not hillclimb and you need racecraftness and that bit of strategy and mechanichal sympathy.

Senna was awesome, one of the greatest, but so is Prost too.

For fastest laps read "driver who was charging at the end of the race". That's who scored the fastest lap in the eighties/early nineties. It has no resemblance whatsoever on race pace, as a driver could be quicker for 90% of the race but miss fastest lap for cruising to the finish when his tanks were low, as Senna so often did.

Senna was quicker than Prost in races too, period. Maybe that is something that takes more watching than raw stats to realize, but really, when both were free of problems it was Senna more often than Prost who was going quicker. That's why Senna got 14 wins during 88/89, while Prost got 11. Senna scored a fewer points in the end because he made a few costy mistakes, and had an enlarged number of mechanical failures, often when in an unchallenged lead. To put it bluntly he wasn't as lucky in those two particular seasons, but that didn't stop most people from realizing who the better driver was, even if the margin was slight. As you said, Prost was a great too.

[hedges]

Originally posted by JPMCrew

Actually, qualifying is the ultimate measure of a driver's speed unless extra curricular activities hinder his performance. As Senna himself said, during the race there is luck involved.

Or of the cars speed, or more correctly the car/driver combo. Even with teammates, the differences in style means the car will not neccessarily suit both drivers. I think we can acknowledge AS and AP had differing styles. The race however determines how well you can drive, not how fast you can go. That luck AS spoke of is when preperation meets opportunity. It would appear from your own standards that Prost was a better racer than Senna.

Races do count of course; but very often the outcome of a race will be pre-determined by qualifying. Qualifying counts as much as the race even if you don't get any points for it.

No qualifying doesn't count 'AS MUCH' as the race, it just helps to be closer to the pointy end. You could reverse just about any grid and the top six in any race wouldn't change, I'm not sure even the final order of the top six would end up that different. In fact AS helps disprove this theory, his pole to victory conversion is probably one of the poorest of 'the greats'.

I have nothing against Senna, he may be the best of all time, but he may not as well. There are a few other drivers past and present who have a justifiable claim to that crown.

Edit, apologies for replying off topic, couldn't help myself

[Rediscoveryx]

Originally posted by Simioni




For fastest laps read "driver who was charging at the end of the race". That's who scored the fastest lap in the eighties/early nineties. It has no resemblance whatsoever on race pace, as a driver could be quicker for 90% of the race but miss fastest lap for cruising to the finish when his tanks were low, as Senna so often did.

Senna was quicker than Prost in races too, period. Maybe that is something that takes more watching than raw stats to realize, but really, when both were free of problems it was Senna more often than Prost who was going quicker. That's why Senna got 14 wins during 88/89, while Prost got 11. Senna scored a fewer points in the end because he made a few costy mistakes, and had an enlarged number of mechanical failures, often when in an unchallenged lead. To put it bluntly he wasn't as lucky in those two particular seasons, but that didn't stop most people from realizing who the better driver was, even if the margin was slight. As you said, Prost was a great too.

You've got a point, though I don't agree with you 100%. The main reason why Prost scored twice as many fastest laps as Senna was that they drove with completely different strategies. Senna always charged 100% from the green light, going as fast as his fuel consumtion allowed him too. Prost was more conservative and thus had the ability to drive faster towards the end of the races. It was a fairly common scenario; Senna opening up a lead of 10-20 seconds in the first half of the race, Prost clawing back towards the end.
The older Senna used tactics and racecraft much better than the younger one, undoubtedly to some degree because of his experience with Prost (Starting ahead of the guy in something like85-90% of the races and still ending up some 32 points adrift).

I think you're underrating Prost's achievements somewhat. Putting it down to "bad luck" isn't a fair view in my book. They were different drivers. Senna's style was more suited to taking pole positions and perhaps also to winning races. Prost's style was suited to win championships.

[Simioni]

Originally posted by Rediscoveryx

You've got a point, though I don't agree with you 100%. The main reason why Prost scored twice as many fastest laps as Senna was that they drove with completely different strategies. Senna always charged 100% from the green light, going as fast as his fuel consumtion allowed him too. Prost was more conservative and thus had the ability to drive faster towards the end of the races. It was a fairly common scenario; Senna opening up a lead of 10-20 seconds in the first half of the race, Prost clawing back towards the end.
The older Senna used tactics and racecraft much better than the younger one, undoubtedly to some degree because of his experience with Prost (Starting ahead of the guy in something like85-90% of the races and still ending up some 32 points adrift).

That's true and something that isn't perceived by many, but it's a fact that from 1990 onwards, Senna's better years IMO, there was a lot of Prost in his racecraft. Typically, Senna would try to start in the front, be blindingly quick in the early laps, and then concentrate on controlling the gap in case someone posed a challenge. In his last 3 seasons Senna often lacked the car to take the fight to the williams, but instead of driving balls out trying to race them, his strategy was often opting to do only 1 or no stops, in order to gain track advantage somehow and then try to remain there. That's the sort of style required to win those days. Unlike today, the driver had to worry about saving fuel, tires and equipment, and I though Senna learned how to play that game at least as well as Prost, I think that was a limiting factor to his real strentgh which was driving quicker than anyone else. He and Schumacher driving flatout two-stoppers would be quite demoralizing for the rest of the field, as Brazil 94 indicated. On that regard Hakkinen has been the only one that managed to be a good sub for Senna in occasion during the last few years.

think you're underrating Prost's achievements somewhat. Putting it down to "bad luck" isn't a fair view in my book. They were different drivers. Senna's style was more suited to taking pole positions and perhaps also to winning races. Prost's style was suited to win championships.

I dont think I underrate Prost though I do believe saying that Senna was more a race winner while Prost was better for championships is an innacurate oversimplification. To be fair with AP I won't disagree that for the sort of racing that went on in the eighties his racecraft was second to none, and I believe after his won his 2nd championship he gradually became a bit too conservative for his own good. From where I stand though, Senna was a more complete driver, in the sense that he had a few extra cards over Prost. Senna was better in street circuits, better on high-speed circuits, better in the wet, better when the car wasn't quite working 100%. Unlike what folklore lead us to believe Senna was a safer bet to win a given race and therefore he had more chances to win a championship given he could stay away from tangling with other drivers and wasn't too unlucky with equipment. In that sense Prost's win in 89, when Senna had 5 mechanical failures and 4 crashes, was IMO circunstancial. Basically, Prost might've been quicker in his earlier years than he was by the time he teamed with Senna but Senna also got wiser, and less unfortunate.

[Nikolas Garth]

Great posts in this thread.

[Rene]

Originally posted by Simioni
Basically, Prost might've been quicker in his earlier years than he was by the time he teamed with Senna but Senna also got wiser, and less unfortunate.

I agree with you that Prost was a more agressive driver in his younger days, and a more thoughtful driver in his latter years, which was the way it seemed Senna was also evolving, I think its the natural progression for all great drivers....they all learn Fangio's lesson, that you only need to drive fast enough to win.

If we compare their records for Fastest race laps we find Alain scored 41 fastest laps while Senna scored 19.

If I may quote the often quoted interview with Prost

"By the time we got to Monza, I was ahead of him in the championship, by about 10 points. But that race. was the real low point between McLaren and me. Senna had two cars, with 20 people around him, and I had just one car, with maybe four or five mechanics working for me. I was absolutely alone, in one part of the garage, and that was perhaps the toughest weekend of my racing career. Honda was really hard against me by then, and it was difficult trying to fight for the championship in that situation. In practice, Ayrton was nearly two seconds quicker than me - OK, as I said, he was certainly a better qualifier than I was, but two seconds? That was a joke."

Just wanted to point out that its tough to draw a comparisson even among teammates when there is internal strife within a team

(Everyone should remember that Next time darling Ron Dennis talks about Mclaren treating their drivers equally...)

[Simioni]

Originally posted by Rene



If I may quote the often quoted interview with Prost


Just wanted to point out that its tough to draw a comparisson even among teammates when there is internal strife within a team

(Everyone should remember that Next time darling Ron Dennis talks about Mclaren treating their drivers equally...)

In all honesty I take Alain's words with a grain of salt considering he's not exactly known for exercizing self-criticism. Granted it's kwown fact that Honda had a crush on Senna and that must've come to play to some degree, but the ironic thing is that if it was their influence that allowed Senna to regularly outqualify Prost by over 1s it was also their engine failures that played a big part in handing Prost the championship that now works as a counterweight to the notion of Senna's superiority as a driver.

[bock16]

Regarding the idea that Prost set his car up for the race rather than qualifying and therefore his tactics were better. I think it should be remembered that since McLaren's cars/drivers were far superior to the rest of the field (especially in '88) and often drove off into the distance, there was a huge track position advantage to Senna at almost every race.More often than not Prost faced the prospect of having to overtake Senna despite the fact that their race pace was usually very close. The other advantage Senna usually had was to stretch the gap a little bit through traffic. It could be argued that Prost should have tried to put his car on pole a bit more often to make Senna do the overtaking. Also, Senna wouldn't be able to dice through traffic so fast if he was following through behind Prost.

I checked Forix on this and in the races where they finished 1-2 (i.e. ahead of the field) Senna beat Prost 11-3. In those same races the qualifying was 13-1 so only twice in those 14 races did the car set up for sunday beat the one set up for qualifying.

[Vrba]

Originally posted by Simioni


In all honesty I take Alain's words with a grain of salt considering he's not exactly known for exercizing self-criticism. Granted it's kwown fact that Honda had a crush on Senna and that must've come to play to some degree, but the ironic thing is that if it was their influence that allowed Senna to regularly outqualify Prost by over 1s it was also their engine failures that played a big part in handing Prost the championship that now works as a counterweight to the notion of Senna's superiority as a driver.

Why couldn't we assume that Senna's mechanical problems weren't bad luck but happened for a reason?
There's no such thing as bad luck. Everything has its cause and consequence. Prost beat Senna fair and square in 1989 and all statements how Senna should have been champion back then are ridiculous.
Senna didn't manage to stay out of trouble when it was avoidable (Brazil, Great Britain, Portugal, we all remember how silly was the collision with Mansell in Portugal), wasn't quick enough when it really counted (Japan) and paid the price for it.

Hrvoje

[magic]

F1Johnny Prost was not a qualifier.

monacoqualifying prost vs. wdc teammates:

prost was 1 second quicker than teammate lauda in '84.
prost was 1 second quicker than teammatelauda in '85.
prost was 2 seconds quicker than teammate rosberg in '86.
prost was 1 second quicker than teammate mansell in '90.
prost was 1 second quicker than teammate hill in '93.



(btw
senna was 1.5 second quicker than teammate prost in '88.
senna was 1+ second quicker than teammate prost in '89. )

[Rediscoveryx]

Well, I would definately give Nigel Mansell 100% blame for the Portugal incident, that was one of the most stupid pieces of driving I've ever seen to be honest (sorry for using a Michael Schumacher expression)

Neither Senna nor Prost were particularly good loosers, I can't think of a single race where one of them admitted that he had lost because the other guy was better that day. They always seemed to have a mechanical problem that explained why the other guy was faster.

One thing that should be noted about 1989 was that Honda did all their engine mapping based on Senna's preferences except for the French GP at Paul Ricard, where they mapped their engines according to Prost's preferences. Prost took the pole and the win, but still they went back to Senna's preferred settings for the next race in Britain which was one of the largest factors in Prost's decision to move to Ferrari.

It could also be argued that Prost, being a more sensible driver (atleast at that time) was able to preserve his engines better than Senna, thus gaining valuable points where Senna drove flat out until his engine gave up.

Given the situation, I definately believe Prost made the absolute best thing possible out of the situation. Put yourself in his position; you're faced with Senna, possibly the greatest qualifier in Grand Prix history, even if you go absolutely flat out and set the best time that you possibly can, chances are extremely high that he still will be a tenth or two away. So Senna starts on pole almost regardless of how good you qualify, then why chase after him like crazy on friday and saturday when it still won't work more than say two times a year? Better then to focus on the race.

In the race you know you're giong to have to start behind him, and since you're fairly even as starters, he will probably be out in front after the first corner. Now, Senna isn't exactly the easiest guy to pass, and experience has shown that it could be costly to attempt any moves on him (just ask Nigel Mansell). Senna's never going to give anything away at any costs (his move at Estoril 1988 clearly showed this), so why chase after him in the opening laps and have to spend the rest of your race closely monitoring your fuel consumption? Why not just sit back for the first couple of laps and wait until later on to make your charge? You're not going to get by him unless you're a lot quicker than him. A late race charge when he's in fuel consumption trouble will put ar greater pressure on him. Best example of this is Monaco 1988, where Prost clawed a couple of seconds back on Senna in just two or three laps after finally passing Berger. Senna's reply was to set a fastest race lap, then crash in the next lap. Little does it matter at that time that Senna had a 40 second lead over Prost, Prost took nine points and Ayrton took none.

It's the ideal outcome of the race for Prost. Basically, either he gains nine points or looses three, so he could afford to finish second to Senna two races out of three. Add to that the fact that Prost also had the ability to outrace Senna fair and square on his day (Mexico, France, Hungary, Portugal, Spain and Australia in 1988 alone), and it's not hard too see that Prost's reliability made him afford to lose eight or nine races in a season as long as he wins the other six or seven.

[Vrba]

Originally posted by Rediscoveryx
Well, I would definately give Nigel Mansell 100% blame for the Portugal incident, that was one of the most stupid pieces of driving I've ever seen to be honest (sorry for using a Michael Schumacher expression)

Neither Senna nor Prost were particularly good loosers, I can't think of a single race where one of them admitted that he had lost because the other guy was better that day. They always seemed to have a mechanical problem that explained why the other guy was faster.

One thing that should be noted about 1989 was that Honda did all their engine mapping based on Senna's preferences except for the French GP at Paul Ricard, where they mapped their engines according to Prost's preferences. Prost took the pole and the win, but still they went back to Senna's preferred settings for the next race in Britain which was one of the largest factors in Prost's decision to move to Ferrari.

It could also be argued that Prost, being a more sensible driver (atleast at that time) was able to preserve his engines better than Senna, thus gaining valuable points where Senna drove flat out until his engine gave up.

Given the situation, I definately believe Prost made the absolute best thing possible out of the situation. Put yourself in his position; you're faced with Senna, possibly the greatest qualifier in Grand Prix history, even if you go absolutely flat out and set the best time that you possibly can, chances are extremely high that he still will be a tenth or two away. So Senna starts on pole almost regardless of how good you qualify, then why chase after him like crazy on friday and saturday when it still won't work more than say two times a year? Better then to focus on the race.

In the race you know you're giong to have to start behind him, and since you're fairly even as starters, he will probably be out in front after the first corner. Now, Senna isn't exactly the easiest guy to pass, and experience has shown that it could be costly to attempt any moves on him (just ask Nigel Mansell). Senna's never going to give anything away at any costs (his move at Estoril 1988 clearly showed this), so why chase after him in the opening laps and have to spend the rest of your race closely monitoring your fuel consumption? Why not just sit back for the first couple of laps and wait until later on to make your charge? You're not going to get by him unless you're a lot quicker than him. A late race charge when he's in fuel consumption trouble will put ar greater pressure on him. Best example of this is Monaco 1988, where Prost clawed a couple of seconds back on Senna in just two or three laps after finally passing Berger. Senna's reply was to set a fastest race lap, then crash in the next lap. Little does it matter at that time that Senna had a 40 second lead over Prost, Prost took nine points and Ayrton took none.

It's the ideal outcome of the race for Prost. Basically, either he gains nine points or looses three, so he could afford to finish second to Senna two races out of three. Add to that the fact that Prost also had the ability to outrace Senna fair and square on his day (Mexico, France, Hungary, Portugal, Spain and Australia in 1988 alone), and it's not hard too see that Prost's reliability made him afford to lose eight or nine races in a season as long as he wins the other six or seven.

Great post!!!!
Absolutely true!

Hrvoje

[magic]

hvroje
Senna ...wasn't quick enough when it really counted (Japan) and paid the price for it.

untrue:

Qualifying Times:

1. Ayrton Senna McLaren-Honda MP4/5 1:38.041 (215.139 km/h)
2. Alain Prost McLaren-Honda MP4/5 - 1.730

"....At the start Prost made a good start and took the lead and for the first half of the race he chipped away to build up a lead of five seconds. Then Senna began to come back at him and by lap 40 they were only a second apart. Prost had the advantage on the straights, Senna was better in the corners. At the end of lap 46 Senna made his move at the chicane. Prost saw him coming and turned into his teammate's path...."


senna reduced a gap form 5 to 0 seconds. by being slower?

[magic]

Rediscoveryx Add to that the fact that Prost also had the ability to outrace Senna fair and square on his day (Mexico, France, Hungary, Portugal, Spain and Australia in 1988 alone)

senna had the ability to outqualify and outrace prost fair and square in '88 and '89.
except for mexico '88 i cannot recall a race in 88 and 89 in which prost was in front of senna on merit.

mexico 88
true:
Prost made a better start than Senna and took the lead with Piquet briefly ahead of Senna but by the end of the first laps Senna was ahead of Piquet again. On the ninth lap Berger overtook Piquet for third and the order then remained unchanged all the way to the finish. Piquet ran fourth until the closing laps when his engine failed and so the place went to Alboreto while fifth and sixth belonged to Warwick and Cheever.
POS NO DRIVER ENTRANT LAPS TIME/RETIREMENT QUAL POS
1  11  Alain Prost  McLaren-Honda   67  1h30m15.737s   2 
2  12  Ayrton Senna  McLaren-Honda   67  1h30m22.841s   1 

france 88
untrue:
Prost took the lead at the start with Senna second ahead of the two Ferraris and a fast-starting Piquet. During the mid-race pit stops Senna managed to get ahead. Senna began to suffer a slight gearbox problem and Prost closed right to him. Senna looked to be in command until they got into traffic and on lap 61 Prost produced a brave opportunist move and was back in the lead. He went on to win with Senna dropping back in the closing laps as he lost gears.

hungary 88
untrue:
Ayrton drove away to win. Mansell chased early on with Patrese third followed by the two Benettons and Berger but Prost moved his way up while Mansell had a spin and dropped back, leaving Patrese to lead the chase until a misfire dropped him back behind Boutsen and Prost. The Belgian was then overtaken by Prost and he began to close on Senna and challenged for the lead. He got ahead but overshot and so Senna went back into the lead and stayed there until the flag, although Prost was right behind him.

portugal 88
questionable:
Senna had to keep an eye on his fuel and soon fell into the clutches of Capelli and on lap 21 Senna dropped to third. Capelli then began to close the gap on Prost. Berger overtook Senna but went out on lap 36 when he pressed the wrong button in his cockpit and set off the fire extinguisher. This eventually caused him to spin off. Senna then fell back to Mansell and the battled for 20 laps before coming up behind Jonathan Palmer's Tyrrell. As they scrambled to get by Mansell ran into the back of Senna and went off into the barriers. Senna had to stop for new tires.

spain 88
questionable:
Prost took the lead at the start while Senna went away rather more slowly than usual and he was overtaken by Mansell. Prost set off to build a lead while Senna found himself stuck behind Mansell. Senna was in difficulties with his fuel computer which insisted that he drive slowly and so he soon found himself trying to keep Patrese and Capelli behind him.

australia 88:
questionable:
Senna made a poor start and Prost went into the lead. Mansell was right with Senna as they went into the first corner but had to give way and dropped behind Berger and Piquet. Further back Alboreto and Caffi collided.
On the third lap Berger overtook Senna and went after Prost. He shadowed the Frenchman until lap 14 when he took the lead and he seemed to be on his way to victory until he collided with Rene Arnoux's Ligier while trying to lap the Frenchman.


and now give us your '89 examples

[Vrba]

Originally posted by magic


untrue:

Qualifying Times:

1. Ayrton Senna McLaren-Honda MP4/5 1:38.041 (215.139 km/h)
2. Alain Prost McLaren-Honda MP4/5 - 1.730

"....At the start Prost made a good start and took the lead and for the first half of the race he chipped away to build up a lead of five seconds. Then Senna began to come back at him and by lap 40 they were only a second apart. Prost had the advantage on the straights, Senna was better in the corners. At the end of lap 46 Senna made his move at the chicane. Prost saw him coming and turned into his teammate's path...."


senna reduced a gap form 5 to 0 seconds. by being slower?

Senna was behind. It means that he was slower because if you monitor certain line on the track in any given moment, Senna crossed it certain amount of time after Prost.
speed=path/time, longer time, slower speed :-)

Hrvoje

[Vrba]

Originally posted by magic


senna had the ability to outqualify and outrace prost fair and square in '88 and '89.
except for mexico '88 i cannot recall a race in 88 and 89 in which prost was in front of senna on merit.

mexico 88
true:
Prost made a better start than Senna and took the lead with Piquet briefly ahead of Senna but by the end of the first laps Senna was ahead of Piquet again. On the ninth lap Berger overtook Piquet for third and the order then remained unchanged all the way to the finish. Piquet ran fourth until the closing laps when his engine failed and so the place went to Alboreto while fifth and sixth belonged to Warwick and Cheever.
POS NO DRIVER ENTRANT LAPS TIME/RETIREMENT QUAL POS
1  11  Alain Prost  McLaren-Honda   67  1h30m15.737s   2 
2  12  Ayrton Senna  McLaren-Honda   67  1h30m22.841s   1 

france 88
untrue:
Prost took the lead at the start with Senna second ahead of the two Ferraris and a fast-starting Piquet. During the mid-race pit stops Senna managed to get ahead. Senna began to suffer a slight gearbox problem and Prost closed right to him. Senna looked to be in command until they got into traffic and on lap 61 Prost produced a brave opportunist move and was back in the lead. He went on to win with Senna dropping back in the closing laps as he lost gears.

hungary 88
untrue:
Ayrton drove away to win. Mansell chased early on with Patrese third followed by the two Benettons and Berger but Prost moved his way up while Mansell had a spin and dropped back, leaving Patrese to lead the chase until a misfire dropped him back behind Boutsen and Prost. The Belgian was then overtaken by Prost and he began to close on Senna and challenged for the lead. He got ahead but overshot and so Senna went back into the lead and stayed there until the flag, although Prost was right behind him.

portugal 88
questionable:
Senna had to keep an eye on his fuel and soon fell into the clutches of Capelli and on lap 21 Senna dropped to third. Capelli then began to close the gap on Prost. Berger overtook Senna but went out on lap 36 when he pressed the wrong button in his cockpit and set off the fire extinguisher. This eventually caused him to spin off. Senna then fell back to Mansell and the battled for 20 laps before coming up behind Jonathan Palmer's Tyrrell. As they scrambled to get by Mansell ran into the back of Senna and went off into the barriers. Senna had to stop for new tires.

spain 88
questionable:
Prost took the lead at the start while Senna went away rather more slowly than usual and he was overtaken by Mansell. Prost set off to build a lead while Senna found himself stuck behind Mansell. Senna was in difficulties with his fuel computer which insisted that he drive slowly and so he soon found himself trying to keep Patrese and Capelli behind him.

australia 88:
questionable:
Senna made a poor start and Prost went into the lead. Mansell was right with Senna as they went into the first corner but had to give way and dropped behind Berger and Piquet. Further back Alboreto and Caffi collided.
On the third lap Berger overtook Senna and went after Prost. He shadowed the Frenchman until lap 14 when he took the lead and he seemed to be on his way to victory until he collided with Rene Arnoux's Ligier while trying to lap the Frenchman.


and now give us your '89 examples

Interesting that every time you won't admit Senna was outraced Senna had problems with gears or had to watch his fuel (didn't Prost drive same car, why didn't he had to watch his fuel? Maybe he knew how to drive whole distance and use his fuel in most efficient way....) or made a poor start (how a poor start, a blatant driver error, may be used as an excuse?).
The same goes for his collisions.
Because every race lasts to the finish, Senna was outraced in every race he didn't finish in front of Prost! And vice-versa.

Hrvoje

[Hawaiian Chicken]

Originally posted by magic



monacoqualifying prost vs. wdc teammates:

prost was 1 second quicker than teammate lauda in '84.
prost was 1 second quicker than teammatelauda in '85.
prost was 2 seconds quicker than teammate rosberg in '86.
prost was 1 second quicker than teammate mansell in '90.
prost was 1 second quicker than teammate hill in '93.



(btw
senna was 1.5 second quicker than teammate prost in '88.
senna was 1+ second quicker than teammate prost in '89. )

It is not relevant. Only a cunning and intelligent racer like Prost would be flexible enough to change tactics against a different driver. Prost knew Senna had great speed in qualifying and not likely to come out ahead, so Prost don't give a **** about qualifiying as close as possible to Senna. Anyway, by concerntrating on race set ups, Prost would still get 2nd position for qualifying.

Prost just raced smarter than Senna, Senna has more short term goals, Senna wants to destroy Prost pyschologically in qualifying speed. But Prost is a cunning fox, not caring about Senna's qualifying speed at all. In fact, Senna's obession with beating Prost caused him race wins.

So, who won the war of pyschology?........PROST ;)


What had Senna earned from his obsession of qualifying?......65poles
anything more than that?......no.........that is important yardsticks to some people, but race wins is all that counts in the eyes of everyone

[magic]

....still waiting for the races the smarter racer outraced the roadrager in '89....

[Vrba]

Originally posted by magic
....still waiting for the races the smarter racer outraced the roadrager in '89....

I have told you: Prost outraced Senna in every race he finished in higher position than Senna.
Namely:
- Brazil
- USA
- France
- Great Britain
- Italy
- Portugal
- Japan

7/16, not bad!

To outrace = to finish race in front of the opponent, not to be quicker in certain stages of the race. If you don't accept this as outracing, no facts will appeal to you.

Hrvoje

[magic]

I have told you: Prost outraced Senna in every race he finished in higher position than Senna.
Namely:
blablabla
- Japan

bout time we stop exchanging thoughts, what a waste...

[Vrba]

Originally posted by magic




bout time we stop exchanging thoughts, what a waste...

I agree because thoughts anyway come from only one side :-))

Hrvoje

[Vrba]

Originally posted by magic




bout time we stop exchanging thoughts, what a waste...

We never started exchanging thoughts because all the time thoughts were coming from only one side :-))

Hrvoje

[Rediscoveryx]

I don't really see why "Senna being boxed in behind competitors" or "Senna having to worry about fuel consumtion" are valid excuses for Senna when they obviously are not valid for Prost. As I said before, both drivers always had an excuse for finishing behind their teammates. There was always a "gearbox trouble" or a "problem with the fuel readout" (this is just as true for Prost as it is for Senna). Whether or not this is true is a matter of debate, but if you acknowledge a Senna win when Prost has gearbox trouble as a fair and square victory, then you're bound to accept these wins as fair and square too (by the way, Senna had tyre problems and fuel consumtion problems in Mexico as well...)

The reason why Prost lost his lead to Senna in France is described in the 1988 Autocourse:

...two laps later Prost came in. At the driver's briefing, a warning had been issued concerning excessive speed in the pitlane, the McLaren drivers being singled out after alledged breaches during practice. The threat of a heavy fine seemed to have made more of an impression on Prost since his progress in the pit lane was noticably more sedate than his teammate's. But, more than that, sticking wheels on the left-hand side caused a momentary delay. All in all it was enough to allow Senna to take the lead just as Prost charged out of the pit lane.

Why you can't see how Prost outraced Senna in Portugal, Spain and Australia is hard to understand. In Hungary, Prost worked his way up from seventh place after the first lap to second (on the Hungaroring), and was actually ahead of Senna going into the first corner at about three quarters distance, but Senna took back the position with a brilliant executed x-move. Then Prost developed a "balance problem" (which is why he wasn't able to pass Senna). He didn't finish ahead of Senna, but his race was certainly more impressive.

In 1989 I agree with you that Senna was the faster man, but Prost won the title because he was more reliable and didn't make as many mistakes as Senna. It's true that a driver can't be blamed for every mechanical failure that occurs, but in the 80's the driver was much more responsible for bringing his car home than he is today. Today (simplified) the driver basically goes flat out and the electronics take care of the rest, in 1989 that wasn't the case, and Prost was better at making his equipment last. He rarely put a foot wrong all year, whereas Senna made a few costly errors (and was hit by Mansell at Portugal).

If they had been driving modern day F1 cars, Senna would probably have been the champion.

[Vrba]

Incident in Portugal in 1989 was a brilliant example of no- brainer from both Mansell and Senna.
Did Senna really need to try to overtake Mansell after Mansell had been blackflagged?
I agree that accident was Mansell fault but intelligent driver (especially in critical stage of the season) would have stayed out of trouble in any case.
Typical for Senna....and typical for Mansell, I wonder what was their cumulative IQ.

Hrvoje

[magic]

good post reddiscoverix. at least we seem to agree that only raceresults only don't tell the whole story.

i'm sure you watched the ms and ms duel in suzuka'00. in the end we can conclude the best (slightly better) man won. ms/ferrari was a tiny bit quicker than mh at suzuka, had pole. but the fin's lightening start denied ms the lead and ms was forced to follow. without the small change in wheatherconditions and the pitstops ms might never have passed mh.

in '89 we have a somewhat similar scenario. senna from pole saw prost zoom past him at the start and in big contrast to prost's usual tactic, the professor stepped on it from the word go. senna must have been stunned, he duely followed but prost went quicker still and opened up a gap of 5 secs. easing away from senna lap after lap, a few tenths per lap. the roles were reversed.
then something special happened. senna started to reel in prost. something nobody ever had done before.
lap after lap he gained on prost. both exchanging fastest lap after fastest lap. no mistakes were made and senna was quicker than a pushing prost. the carbreaking roadrager outracing the smart racer. and guess who rammed who when senna reached the professor after outracing him for 20 consequetive laps?

[Rediscoveryx]

Originally posted by Vrba
Incident in Portugal in 1989 was a brilliant example of no- brainer from both Mansell and Senna.
Did Senna really need to try to overtake Mansell after Mansell had been blackflagged?
I agree that accident was Mansell fault but intelligent driver (especially in critical stage of the season) would have stayed out of trouble in any case.
Typical for Senna....and typical for Mansell, I wonder what was their cumulative IQ.

Hrvoje

Actually, it was the other way around - Mansell tried to overtake Senna. Yes, one could argue that Senna should have let Mansell through without a fight and thus he would have avoided the collision, but that doesn't change the fact that the really stupid move was on Mansell's part.

[Rene]

Originally posted by magic
guess who rammed who when senna reached the professor after outracing him for 20 consequetive laps?

I'll let the Professeur answer this question....

"As for the accident between us at the chicane, yes, I know everybody thinks I did it on purpose. What I say is that I did not open the door, and that's it. I didn't want to finish the race like that - I'd led from the start, and I wanted to win it."

"I had a good car; I'd been very bad in qualifying, compared with Ayrton, and I concentrated entirely on the race. In the warm-up I was nearly a second quicker than him, and for the race itself I was quite confident, even when he started catching me."

"I didn't want him too close, obviously, but I wanted him close enough that he would hurt his tyres; my plan was then to pus hard over the last ten laps. As it was he tried to pass - and for me the way he did it was impossible, because he was going so much quicker than usual into the braking area."

"I couldn't believe he tried it on that lap, because, as we came up to the chicane, he was so far back. When you look in your mirrors, and a guy is 20 metres behind you, it's impossible to judge, and I didn't even realise he was trying to overtake me. But at the same time I thought, 'There's no way I'm going to leave him even a one-metre gap. No way'. I came off the throttle braked - and turned in."

[magic]

i'll let court:

[QUOTE]The collision between McLaren teammates Alain Prost and Ayrton Senna at the Japanese Grand Prix of 1989 marked one of the heights of a bitter rivalry, perhaps the most bitter in Formula One history. In trying this case, however, we must primarily isolate the specific incident of the 1989 collision at Suzuka from any other incident that took place before or after. And, we must first and foremost establish whether this incident was inevitable, a result of an error, or whether it was caused deliberately.

Cause and Action - the Action

The most important evidence brought to the court are the two video clips provided by Drifter.

The video clip 'suzuka2' shows Senna approximately half a second behind Prost through 130R. This can be estimated by counting video frames (25 frames per second) from a fixed point of reference, such as the end of the kerb on the exit to 130R.

Before the braking area, Prost takes the racing line, then moves to a defensive line, edging to the right under the Shell Bridge, putting his right-hand wheels near to the line on the road marking the pitlane entrance.

Senna moves completely inside this line, which by definition is painted at least the width of an F1 car from the edge of the track. Senna takes the piece of track that is delineated for entry into the pits. However, this is still part of the racing track. He closes in on Prost with alarming speed under braking. To get ahead of Prost, he must make up half a second in this braking manoeuvre, virtually impossible if Prost brakes on the limit.

However, Prost clearly turns in early -- this can be established by video evidence -- and then he backs off. At this point, Senna's front wheel is alongside Prost's cockpit. Prost turns in again and initial contact is made between Prost's front wheel and Senna's front wing, so at this point the cars were nearly alongside each other. Prost is ahead, but only by the width of a tyre. After Prost's steering wheel violently reacts to the impact, he turns in again and holds it until the cars come to a halt.

Prost's hand movements after his initial defensive move to the right (which was followed by a move back to a central steering position, very likely being the force feedback caused by the impact), do indicate he deliberately drove into Senna's car.

Hence, we find Alain Prost guilty of deliberately colliding with Ayrton Senna.

Cause and Action - the Cause

Having found Prost guilty of deliberately ramming into an opponent, there is little to be said in favour of his sporting behaviour in that incident.

Formula One drivers are expected to fight and not make it easy on their rivals to pass them. However, ramming into an opponent is dangerous and unacceptable no matter what are the stakes at hand, or who is the driver in the second cockpit. And, as established before, this accident was by no means a negligent or unavoidable error, and cannot be merely put down to a 'driving incident'.

What was the cause for Alain Prost's actions?

Both drivers had had differences of opinion before, and their relationship, as was evident from anecdotal stories brought to the court, was bitter and unfriendly. This was heightened at Imola earlier in the season, where Prost believed that Senna had broken a gentlemen's agreement by passing him in the first corner at the restart. With this in mind, revenge could have been Prost's motive at Suzuka.

Prost's second possible motive could be to secure the World Championship by eliminating Senna (with two races to go in the Championship season, Senna had to win the Japanese GP to stay in contention for the WC).

Either way, we cannot see the latter reason nor the former, to offer compelling or mitigating circumstances for any driver to act in an unsporting way. And, while no clear evidence could be provided as to the private reasons and thoughts behind a person's action, we find enough circumstantial evidence to believe that Prost's cause of actions were unsporting - no matter what the motive behind them.

We therefore find Prost's action at Suzuka 1989 to be unsporting.


Conclusion

When this trial began, we have included three stipulations in the preamble of this case:

1. Did Alain Prost deliberately collide with Ayrton Senna?
2. Did Alain Prost act unsportingly?
3. Did Alain Prost do this in order to secure the championship?

We believe that the first element was proven beyond doubt. We therefore believe that the second element was proven as well. We do not believe, however, that enough evidence was brought to prove the motive (element 3) beyond doubt, however the result remains the same regardless of its cause - Ayrton Senna lost any chance of contending the World Championship title of 1989 due to the unsporting behaviour of his main rival.

This court does not include punishments in its verdict, nor can it presume to pronounce a verdict that has any effect in real life. In the case of Alain Prost and the 1989 Japanese GP collision, we can only state that to the best of our judgement, he was guilty of the sport's worst crime: he acted unsportingly, and in doing so had settled the highest prize - the World Championship title - unfairly.

No evidence was brought to the court of similar incidents happening before this occasion, and we can only assume that this incident had, in its own way, set a precedent in the sport. It was by no means, however, the last time such an incident had happened and therefore, with the benefit of hindsight, we can only be sorry that this phenomenon was not nipped in the bud by the governing bodies of Formula One.

As for Alain Prost himself? - He remains one of the greatest drivers to ever live. His four World Championships stand intact. Seven years after the Frenchman retired from active Formula One driving, his records stand for all to see and admire. No other but him is the bigger loser, then, for the 1989 Japanese GP leaving a stain on what would have otherwise been an impeccable record of success.

[Vrba]

Originally posted by Rediscoveryx



Actually, it was the other way around - Mansell tried to overtake Senna. Yes, one could argue that Senna should have let Mansell through without a fight and thus he would have avoided the collision, but that doesn't change the fact that the really stupid move was on Mansell's part.

Yes, now I remember. My mistake. However, that doesn't change the fact that Senna had some mental problems with being overtaken.

Hrvoje