47 replies to this topic

[Vagabond]

Just some statistics, which as we all know are at best useless, at worst misleading ;)
1988-1989
Prost vs Senna
WDC 1 : 1
Wins 11: 14
Poles 4 : 26
Poins/total 163/186 : 150/154
Podiums 25 : 18
FastLaps 12 : 6

The picture could not be any clearer: brain vs speed.
Could anybody supply it with some data about spin-offs, collisions, etc.?
By the way with current regulations Prost would have clinched both WDCs because of the total number of points won.

[Louis Mr. F1]

off my head,

Senna crash: Monaco 88, Monza 88, Brazil 89, Portugal 89, Japan 89, Australia 89
Senna spin: Britain 89
The above are all no-point scoring for Senna

Prost spin: Hockemheim 88, Imola 89 2nd both races
Prost crash: Japan 89

[Simioni]

Originally posted by Vagabond
Just some statistics, which as we all know are at best useless, at worst misleading ;)

The picture could not be any clearer: brain vs speed.

You´re contradicting yourself.

[The RedBaron]

Originally posted by Vagabond
Just some statistics, which as we all know are at best useless, at worst misleading ;)
1988-1989
Prost vs Senna
WDC 1 : 1
Wins 11: 14
Poles 4 : 26
Poins/total 163/186 : 150/154
Podiums 25 : 18
FastLaps 12 : 6

The picture could not be any clearer: brain vs speed.
Could anybody supply it with some data about spin-offs, collisions, etc.?
By the way with current regulations Prost would have clinched both WDCs because of the total number of points won.

Hardly a Senna domination, pretty even in my books. Depends what you value most...either pole positions and wins or podium finishes, fastest laps and points.

[KinetiK]

[nostalgia]

I think so...

[/nostalgia]

[berge]

Originally posted by Vagabond
Just some statistics, which as we all know are at best useless, at worst misleading ;)

pity you didn't take your own advice and stop right there.

[Ricardo F1]

Originally posted by The RedBaron



Hardly a Senna domination, pretty even in my books. Depends what you value most...either pole positions and wins or podium finishes, fastest laps and points.

As drivers they were very close IMHO ; in terms of raw speed Senna had the magical touch that Prost never did.

[senninha]

Originally posted by Vagabond
Just some statistics, which as we all know are at best useless, at worst misleading ;)
1988-1989
Prost vs Senna
WDC 1 : 1
Wins 11: 14
Poles 4 : 26
Poins/total 163/186 : 150/154
Podiums 25 : 18
FastLaps 12 : 6

Where is:

Laps led ? (the number wich shows how Senna dominated that time)
Retirments ? (i don't remember any retirment from Senna when he was below Prost, only ahead, normaly 1st)

[nja]

interesting....but there is a Nostalgia Forum........

[Slyder]

Originally posted by Vagabond
Just some statistics, which as we all know are at best useless, at worst misleading ;)
1988-1989
Prost vs Senna
WDC 1 : 1
Wins 11: 14
Poles 4 : 26
Poins/total 163/186 : 150/154
Podiums 25 : 18
FastLaps 12 : 6

The picture could not be any clearer: brain vs speed.
Could anybody supply it with some data about spin-offs, collisions, etc.?
By the way with current regulations Prost would have clinched both WDCs because of the total number of points won.

If you saw the races you'll think otherwise

I saw the races, and Senna was clearly over Prost.

[ruther]

Originally posted by Simioni


You´re contradicting yourself.

just funny...;)

[ruther]

Originally posted by senninha


Where is:

Laps led ? (the number wich shows how Senna dominated that time)

Retirments ? (i don't remember any retirment from Senna when he was below Prost, only ahead, normaly 1st)

[kenny]

Originally posted by Vagabond
Just some statistics, which as we all know are at best useless, at worst misleading ;)
1988-1989
Prost vs Senna
WDC 1 : 1
Wins 11: 14
Poles 4 : 26
Poins/total 163/186 : 150/154
Podiums 25 : 18
FastLaps 12 : 6

hmm didn't notice this one before...
out of the 18 times Senna was on the podium he won 14
Prost out of the 25, won 11...

but as most here said..statistics prove nothing...
Those who were there during these years know who was the dominating driver...

[Breadmaster]

Originally posted by nja
interesting....but there is a Nostalgia Forum........

christ! when were you born? this isn't nostalgia!
Nuvolari is nostalgia.
bloody kids.

[Vagabond]

Originally posted by Simioni
You´re contradicting yourself.

Nope, the picture could be clear, still misleading and useless ;)

Originally posted by Slyder
If you saw the races you'll think otherwise
I saw the races, and Senna was clearly over Prost.

I believe I never said my thoughts

Originally posted by senninha

Where is:
Laps led ? (the number wich shows how Senna dominated that time)
Retirments ? (i don't remember any retirment from Senna when he was below Prost, only ahead, normaly 1st)

Here it is:
Laps led 708: 1040
Retirements due to technical reasons: 3: 3
Spin-offs (with no points scored)
Senna: 3 -- Monaco 88, Italy 88, Brazil 89 (all while leading)
Prost: 0
Collisions:
Senna: 3 -- Portugal 89, Japan 89, Australia 89
Prost: 2 -- Japan 89, Australia 89

What is noteworthy here is that despite pushing harder in races (seen by the number of fastest laps) Prost was much less prone to making mistakes. What's that? Better concentration?

[Rediscoveryx]

Senna's spin in Brazil 1989 was not while leading, it was in the first corner and Senna, Berger and Patrese were three abreast, Berger and Senna collided. The incident had some resemblance to the Schumacher-Montoya incident in Malaysia. Senna continued on and was eventually classified 10th or 11th.

Senna's collision in Portugal in 1989 was 100% Nigel Mansell's fault.


Slyder's comment is interesting

If you saw the races you'll think otherwise
I saw the races, and Senna was clearly over Prost.

As Vagabond said, he didn't say what his thoughts were. Sometimes, even the slightest hint of criticism against Senna leads to strong reactions

[Simioni]

Those mech. failure numbers from forix aren't reliable because they count classification if a car fails near the end. Senna had 1 failure in 88 which forix doesn't mention - transmission on the starting grid which prompted his disclassification later for switching cars. He had 4 in 89 alone, Canada, Phoenix, France, and Italy, as well as a gearbox malfunction which prompted alledgedly his spin at silverstone.

Collisions and spins off are wrong too - Senna only went out by himself at Monaco 88. Monza 88 and Brazil 89 were collisions with other drivers.

As for fastest laps, you should be following your own advice before drawing conclusions Senna was faster most of the time but it was usually Prost doing the chasing in the end of the race when the tanks were low, hence his numbers.

[Vagabond]

Originally posted by Simioni
As for fastest laps, you should be following your own advice before drawing conclusions Senna was faster most of the time but it was usually Prost doing the chasing in the end of the race when the tanks were low, hence his numbers.

Exactly my point. Incredibly few mistakes while 'doing the chasing'. (Remember I never said Prost was faster because of the higher number of FL. Don't draw my conclusions from your own.)

[Simioni]

Yeah Prost certainly was more reliable than Senna during the mclaren years. But Senna was faster, and to be faster you have to take risks. A matter of philosophy.

[Todd]

Originally posted by KinetiK
[nostalgia]

I think so...

[/nostalgia]

Considering that the Gilles Villeneuve tributes are posted in Readers Comments, I guess we shouldn't be surprised.

[BRG]

Originally posted by kenny
Those who were there during these years know who was the dominating driver...

I was, and I don't. I take it however that you are implying Senna was dominant.

Well, if you measure dominance by sheer speed on any given lap, then perhaps he was. If you measure dominance by where the two finished races, then it is not so clear. Senna famously said that he drove "outside" his head as if wholly by instinct. Prost on the other hand was "the Professor" the thinking driver who never went any faster than he needed to.

I have never managed to decide which was the better. I never liked Sanna much for what I saw as bullying tactics and arrogance, whilst Prost equally never appealed that much for lacking "true-grit" racer credentials - I preferred the likes of Gilles! The Prost/Senna debate is not a clear-cut issue, although nowadays so many talk of Senna as the (or one of the) all-time greatest drivers and very few regard Prost so highly.

[DOHC]

British Racing Green --

[Rediscoveryx]

Originally posted by BRG
I was, and I don't. I take it however that you are implying Senna was dominant.

Well, if you measure dominance by sheer speed on any given lap, then perhaps he was. If you measure dominance by where the two finished races, then it is not so clear. Senna famously said that he drove "outside" his head as if wholly by instinct. Prost on the other hand was "the Professor" the thinking driver who never went any faster than he needed to.

I have never managed to decide which was the better. I never liked Sanna much for what I saw as bullying tactics and arrogance, whilst Prost equally never appealed that much for lacking "true-grit" racer credentials - I preferred the likes of Gilles! The Prost/Senna debate is not a clear-cut issue, although nowadays so many talk of Senna as the (or one of the) all-time greatest drivers and very few regard Prost so highly.

Good post. At the time (88-90) neither Senna nor Prost was generally acclaimed to be superior to the other. Fast forward 12 years and suddenly Senna in generally regarded as the man of the era.

[Simioni]

Originally posted by Rediscoveryx




Good post. At the time (88-90) neither Senna nor Prost was generally acclaimed to be superior to the other. Fast forward 12 years and suddenly Senna in generally regarded as the man of the era.

People mostly remember what they saw last. And the last we saw of Prost were two lackluster seasons, and a fumbled F1 team administration.

[Rediscoveryx]

Good point Simioni, though I feel that Prost's 1993 season is somewhat underrated

[Chui]

Ayrton Senna daSilva never said he drove "on instinct". You miss the point entirely. Try reading the excellent driver's book Inside Speed Secrets.

To be as good as one can be one must progress from:

• consciously not aware
• to being made consciously aware
• progress to being unconsciously aware

This is the level in which he drove at times. Probably more so than not when he was qualifying.

Playing/competing in Judo at times I reach that level and things "just happen". The guys that are better than me are those who can go into that frame of mind and stay there for longer periods than I can. I play flag football in that level at will. I occassionally drive in that manner, too. Emphasis on "occasionally". Michael Schumacher can reach this level and stay at that level better than anyone in the sport which is why he's currently the best. I can assure you it isn't "instinct", per se.

The great thing about Senna was that he allowed one to peek into his mind much more than the gentlemen do today. They tell us mechanical things, things that we can make out for ourselves. For instance, "the car had too much understeer" or "there was electrical issues". I'd rather get a peek into his mind or soul. What was he thinking? What state of mind are they in? Michael would be a great one to sit and talk to as I figure that he's as good as Senna in some respects, better in some respects and close to Senna in others. The only thing is if his perceptions are as keen as Senna's, which judging by his after qualifying and after race interviews, is not.

[Simioni]

Originally posted by Rediscoveryx
Good point Simioni, though I feel that Prost's 1993 season is somewhat underrated

How so? He won 7 races, while I could easily Senna winning at least 12 if the roles had been reversed. Alain´s fire was all but gone, and not even seeing Senna outshine him seemed to give him any motivation.

[Rediscoveryx]

You're probably right about Senna in the 1993 Williams, but Prost won the championship rather convincingly and had a couple of really dominant races (Montreal springs to mind). Hw wasn't the "old" Prost but he was still highly competitive.

[aportinga]

Alain Prost - the former owner of the Prost team was a driver? Was he any good?

[senninha]

Originally posted by Rediscoveryx




Good post. At the time (88-90) neither Senna nor Prost was generally acclaimed to be superior to the other. Fast forward 12 years and suddenly Senna in generally regarded as the man of the era.

I think people didn´t watch F1 that era are misunderstanding the things:

The point is: Alain Prost, on his 5th year of Mclaren (AP on his peak, his 10th season on F1. In 1987, he beated J.Stewart record of victories), accepted "share" his team with a unproven and younger driver: Ayrton Senna.

Senna, even on a strange/new team, younger, and not in his peak as a driver (it came in 93, IMHO), beated AP fair and square in his first year of Mclaren (88). In 89, Senna´s dominance was even greater. But his car (mec problems) and some stupid crashs (including - Prost unsporting behavior in Japan 89 - dind´t allow Senna repeat the WDC).

We can compare with MS (as AP role) and RB (as AS) role. Who on earth would expect RB would detonate MS on his 1st season at Ferrari?

Senna did it with Prost. It was amazing.

When Senna became more experient, he learnt how to conservate his car. In 90, he finished 14 races in a row, before his first mec problem (Spain). Even without the best car he could deal with Prost in 90 and Mansell in 91.

From 90 on we saw another Senna - more experient and smart. Afterall there wasn´t necessary to prove how good he was. He wasn´t as hungry as he was until 88.

In 93 (Senna´s 10 season), he was in his peak. Did his best season with a crap car/engine.

In 94, it was proved : 3 poles in THAT car ... but life is unfair and let Senna goes.

[AndreasF1]

Good post. At the time (88-90) neither Senna nor Prost was generally acclaimed to be superior to the other. Fast forward 12 years and suddenly Senna in generally regarded as the man of the era.
_____________________________________________________________________________

Where have you been? Senna was always regarded superior to Prost. Ask Honda, ask Dennis, ask the drivers of Sennas generation. Dennis let Prost go to Ferrari because he prefered Senna and so did Honda. It was Prost that ran from Senna. Senna literally signed Prost's pension check when he came on board with Williams in 94. Prost had the option to stay but he choose retirement because he wouldn't be able to handle the humiliation Senna was about to impose on him. Thats how Prost vs Senna will be remebered in most peoples minds.

[Simioni]

Andreas I obviously agree that Senna was better than Prost, but I think Rediscoveryx address the point that AP doesn´t always get the respect a driver with 51 GP wins to his name deserves. It´s also true that not everyone used to proclaim loud and clear that Senna was the best driver of his generation, the way it´s done about Schumacher today. They were both exceptional, and again if Senna was better that shouldn´t relegate Prost to being a mere footnote.

[Vagabond]

Originally posted by AndreasF1
[B]It was Prost that ran from Senna. Senna literally signed Prost's pension check when he came on board with Williams in 94. Prost had the option to stay but he choose retirement because he wouldn't be able to handle the humiliation Senna was about to impose on him.

Prost claimed at the end of 1989 that he were not to drive for the same team with Senna for moral reasons.

[Simioni]

Well that´s certainly better than saying "I won´t partner him again because I know he´ll beat the crap out of me".

[davioissimo]

You had to have watched the races to see Senna was by far the faster, like I said before i depends on what you class as better a points gatherer sensible sort or a point proving speed obsessive both geniuses for what they did that they wanted to do.
Stop talking numbers just watch some races on tape Prosts whole existance was to score points Senna's was to finish 1st of which back fires more.

[Rene]

Originally posted by AndreasF1
Good post. At the time (88-90) neither Senna nor Prost was generally acclaimed to be superior to the other. Fast forward 12 years and suddenly Senna in generally regarded as the man of the era.
_____________________________________________________________________________

Where have you been? Senna was always regarded superior to Prost. Ask Honda, ask Dennis, ask the drivers of Sennas generation. Dennis let Prost go to Ferrari because he prefered Senna and so did Honda. It was Prost that ran from Senna. Senna literally signed Prost's pension check when he came on board with Williams in 94. Prost had the option to stay but he choose retirement because he wouldn't be able to handle the humiliation Senna was about to impose on him. Thats how Prost vs Senna will be remebered in most peoples minds.

Talk about an over statement....

Senna was always regarded superior to Prost. Ask Honda, ask Dennis, ask the drivers of Sennas generation.

There are many many drivers at the time who thought Senna was a bully and unfair to race against....since his death many of his critics have toned down their assults for fear of being accused of slamming the dead....The fact is many people in F1 (not fans but professionals) regard Prost and one of the greatest drivers ever....to argue otherwise is to show you have no grasp of reality...was Senna great? Of course he was, but that does not in any way diminish the skill of Prost...

[Rene]

I could not say it better than this.....

Originally written by David Buttery

Ayrton Senna was not the greatest F1 driver of all time. That was Jim Clark. He wasn't the second-best. That was Fangio. And he wasn't third - a close race between Moss and Prost. "You what!?" I hear the Sennaphiles yelling. "How... Which... What...???" they splutter. And if statistics were the only measure of a driver's standing, they could be right (though they can hardly use that argument when they have employed it for so long to diminish Alain Prost's record). But there is more to it than that.

Simply put, Senna in life was not, and in death is not, a man worthy of such deified status. A very fine driver indeed, no question, among the very top echelon in F1's long history, but as many of his more sensible supporters understand, undeserving of the (occasionally absurd) level of idolisation slobbered over him both before, and more especially since, his ghastly death.

Naturally, the shocking events of May 1st, 1994 could hardly be expected to leave anyone unmoved. Without doubt, it was a body blow to the F1 community, rivalled only by the tremor that went through the sport after Jim Clark's demise at Hockenheim 26 years earlier. But that was in a relatively insignificant F2 race, whereas the calamity of Senna's death was played out in front of the modern media scrum.

The inevitable result of such an incident was that Ayrton's life and death were both front- and back-page news for weeks and even months, allowing the (depressingly, yet somehow inevitably, substantial) mob of Senna hagiographers to seize their chance to cement (as they would see it) his rightful place as the greatest of them all, treating any questioning of his almost divine right to be regarded as such with little short of contempt, in much the same way as that in which those who dared to question any aspect of Princess Diana's behaviour in 1997 were howled down by the hysterical tabloid press.

All this sounds rather brutal. And deliberately so, as I am quite angry at some of the hogwash spewed out by the more extreme members of the Sennapod Crew. For example, the utter hypocrisy of those who condemn Michael Schumacher for unsporting driving, yet laud Ayrton to the skies for what amounts to more or less exactly the same thing, is not infrequently beyond belief. Sorry, but it was *not* somehow different when Senna drove into the back of a rival from when Schumacher did/does it - deliberately taking out an opponent is no more acceptable for a genius than for a journeyman - possibly less so, as the genius has more alternatives available to him. Some of you might suspect what I'm working up to here, and you'd be quite correct: the rivalry with Alain Prost, a clash ("feud" is not too strong a word) which almost single-handedly defined F1 in the years 1988 to 1990.

First things first: Senna did not really out-drive Prost in 1988. He actually won the championship by dint of his superior tactical thinking and knowledge of the regulations, something the majority of people would probably consider to be a Prost strongpoint. Prost scored considerably more points than Ayrton in the raw totals; it was only when the infamous "best 11" rule was taken into account that Senna came out on top. In other words, Prost had been hoist by his own petard - he was simply too consistent for his own good.

The following year, however, was a rather different kettle of fish. As the season wore on, it became increasingly obvious, even before Alain signed for Ferrari in mid-year, that the motivation was lower than of old. The impression given by Honda (many suspect with their full knowledge, though this has not been proved) was that Senna was the "company favourite", and while the paranoia Prost felt about this was probably a little over the top, there's good reason to suppose that Honda did favour the Brazilian, at least slightly. After all, he was staying on for the next yeat, while Prost would be moving to their biggest rivals at Maranello.

Then came Suzuka, the penultimate race of the '89 season. Atypically, Prost made a much better start than his team-mate, and Senna was left trailing in the Frenchman's wake. Ayrton was not all that concerned, however - he enjoyed the challenge of Suzuka, and his drive through the field from 14th to victory the previous year had been one of his finest - and steadily reeled the Frenchman in. At the dead slow (well, 50 mph, which is much the same thing for a Grand Prix car) chicane, Senna tried to barge his way past, hoping to bully Prost into opening the door. Alain wasn't having any of it, and steadfastly refused to shift, knowing full well what the likely outcome would be. The result was the distinctly unedifying sight of the two McLarens sitting like beached whales, wheels interlocked, in the centre of the track.

Prost quickly got out of the car, secure in the knowledge that the two cars' retirements would make him World Champion, but unexpectedly Senna got himself going again and made it to the finish. He thought he had kept the championship alive, but discovered that he had been disqualified for cutting across the chicane. It was a clear-cut transgression of the regulations, but for some reason, Senna supporters have whinged about this exclusion for ages. Would they do the same for Schuey in equivalent circumstances? I think not, somehow. Rules are rules, even for Ayrton Senna... despite what the man himself might have thought.

In terms of the image of the (so-called) sport, 1990 was worse still. The greater part of the year witnessed an engrossing battle between Senna's McLaren-Honda and Prost's rejuvenated Ferrari team. (As things transpired, of course, this revival was a strictly one-season affair. Ludicrously, Ferrari decided that their best asset by far was responsible for their awful 1991, and fired him before season's end. 1992 was far, far worse for the Scuderia.) For a period, optimism was high that the title could (for once) be settled by driving skill and superior tactics alone. But, with terrible inevitability, the spectre of Suzuka raised its ugly head again.

Senna had won pole, with Prost alongside him on the front row, but Ayrton had been angered by pole being placed - despite his protests - on what he saw as the inferior, dirtier side of the track. This might just have been the spark that lit the fuse in Senna's mind that simmered quietly away, before exploding spectacularly on the Sunday afternoon when it came - literally - to the crunch.

Both cars made a good getaway from the line, and it was touch and go who would reach the first corner ahead. We never found out - because Senna took it upon himself to drive into Prost at approximately 150mph. He denied it vehemently at the time, but at the following year's Japanese GP (in an expeletive-filled press conference oration etched on the mind of all who heard it) he "admitted" responsibility. The idea that Senna's actions can be equated to Prost's 1989 obstinacy is little short of absurd - there is all the difference in the world between shutting the door at 50mph and using your car as a guided missile 100mph faster.

I use the quotes in "admitted", as Senna made the statement with much the same level of sincerity that terrorists use when they admit" responsibility for bombs. Had there not been a very large gravel trap on the outside of turn one, the possible results would not have borne thinking about; as it was, it was inexcusably dangerous. I've said it on many occasions before, and I'll say it again here: Ayrton Senna's behaviour in the 1990 Japanese Grand Prix went well beyond the brainless, even beyond the wild, and into the realms of the despicably indefensible. He could quite easily have killed both men - scandalous doesn't even begin to cover it.

Not, of course, that this was an isolated incident, in thought if not in deed. Senna's obsessive temperament got the better of him on several occasions - he regularly drove parallel to other cars on the straight, progressively moving over in order to force them nearer and nearer to the wall. His purpose, clearly, was to scare his opponents into backing off. That's not racing; it's bare-faced thuggery. Supporters of Senna's case often refer with approval to his intense "win at all costs, no matter what the consequences" attitude. Sorry, people, but while that might (and in Ayrton's case did) make you a regular winner, what it certainly doesn't do is to make you a great sportsman. If anything, it achieves precisely the opposite. This nasty streak in Senna's character explains why, despite awarding him a four-star rating for his undoubted driving skills, the "recommend to a friend" box reads "no".

Right then, let's call a truce at this point, and take a look at Ayrton Senna's more edifying side. The man was probably the best driver the world has ever seen over a single qualifying lap - his pole position count of 61 may well stand for all time. In the rain, too, he excelled. Senna came to prominence in a wet race - Monaco 1984 - and might have won had it not been stopped early (though it was not such a foregone conclusion as many people think - Stefan Bellof, having driven an astounding race from last on the grid to third by lap 27, was reeling in Senna's Toleman even as the pair of them closed in on the leader, Prost). Ayrton's excellent car control meant that his driving in the wet was superb - Donington 1993 is the example given on almost every occcasion, but with good reason; it was breathtaking even on TV.

I'm sure that his ability in difficult conditions was the main reason that Senna objected so strongly to the mendaciously named "driver aids" - an issue on which I agreed with him entirely. (The "we can't police it comprehensively, so we'll legalise it" argument is utterly ridiculous - should the police therefore legalise drug dealing and burglary?) There's even a genuine, if arguable, case, for his point-blank refusal to accommodate Derek Warwick (a fine driver cursed with wretched luck to almost equal Chris Amon) alongside him at Lotus in 1986. Senna judged that Lotus would not be able to handle two drivers of the top rank, and in this he was very possibly right - after all, running one good car proved enough of a struggle for the marque, and his departure in 1988 was, for practical purposes, the end of Lotus as a really competitive force in Grand Prix racing.

But in spite of all this undoubted ability and achievement, I can't condsider him to be the greatest. So he got vast numbers of poles? Indeed yes... but thre are no points for that. To finish first, you must first finish, and whether you started 1st or 11th makes no odds if you see the chequered flag before anyone else. He won in uncompetitive machinery? So did Schumacher (in his early Ferrari races), Prost (1986 McLaren), Piquet (Benetton), Berger (Benetton again), and even Panis (Ligier). He wowed the crowds? So did Mansell and - especially - Alesi.

The fundamental thing is this: Ayrton Senna was a very good, even great racing driver. He was certainly a good psychologist, making his competitors *believe* he was unbeatable. But he really was not the superhuman character certain people, both past and present, have made out. And it's hard to get away from the fact that Senna, more than anyone else in recent years (even Schumacher), was responsible for the disagreeable coarsening of driver conduct to the point where barging a rival off the road is considered acceptable behaviour. Among today's top drivers, perhaps only David Coulthard has a true sense of racing propriety. That legacy, I'm afraid, I can't forgive him for.

[davioissimo]

Originally posted by Rene


Talk about an over statement....

There are many many drivers at the time who thought Senna was a bully and unfair to race against....since his death many of his critics have toned down their assults for fear of being accused of slamming the dead....The fact is many people in F1 (not fans but professionals) regard Prost and one of the greatest drivers ever....to argue otherwise is to show you have no grasp of reality...was Senna great? Of course he was, but that does not in any way diminish the skill of Prost...

That sounds like a biased opinion to me 'Rene' I watched Senna complete F1 career every race live all bar one season against Prost, I suggest you ask Prost he'll tell you Senna was by far the faster and that he tried instead to gather points and go for the championship instead of beating Senna on speed. 1993 was so funny because Senna by then was a sensible speed freak so even more of a handful for Prost beating him everytime he had a chance his inferior McLaren gave him obvious choice being slippery conditions

[Rene]

Originally posted by davioissimo


That sounds like a biased opinion to me 'Rene' I watched Senna complete F1 career every race live all bar one season against Prost, I suggest you ask Prost he'll tell you Senna was by far the faster and that he tried instead to gather points and go for the championship instead of beating Senna on speed. 1993 was so funny because Senna by then was a sensible speed freak so even more of a handful for Prost beating him everytime he had a chance his inferior McLaren gave him obvious choice being slippery conditions

Of course Im biased...and I admit it...my whole point is not everyone see's things the way the Sennaphiles do....I certainly don't....

[davioissimo]

Originally posted by Rene


Of course Im biased...and I admit it...my whole point is not everyone see's things the way the Sennaphiles do....I certainly don't....

Just look at it as it is or was no bias I just watched the races firstly saw how Alain won brilliantly the 85 season he was so so consumate then Senna just broke into the fore brilliantly in lesser cars for quite a while then amazingly to see them in the same car and Senna beating Prost at the championship game when Senna wasn't even playing that game was amazing ! It was just there to see I was no Senna fan until my man Mansell let me down so much I was no Senna fan until Alesi let me down and Prost fan until Alboreto let me down and Ferrari. There has been so many drivers ive been fans of that failed and led my back to Senna or Prost I couldn't avoid thinking they were briliant and then Schumacher came along..brilliant !!! but still didnt beat Senna in a better car !

[Simioni]

Sorry Rene but even taking into account my own bias that article is the biggest pile of crap I've ever seen. Was it written by Holiday?

[AndreasF1]

Sure Prost was an awesome driver, statistics will prove that. But the main difference between him and Senna is that Prosts approach to racing was entirely different to Sennas. Prosts has rarely been an exciting driver to watch. His unquestionable brain power in a race car made his wins look easy on TV even it was not so in reality. However, to keep things in perspective here it is also true that while Prost raced against Senna while both at McLaren there were only a few occations where Prost pulled out a win on Senna because he was beating Senna on the track. When Prost won it was mostly because Senna broke down or spun out but not because he was dominating his teammate. I'd like to see a statistic about races won while capitalizing on the teammate's errors. I think it would clearly show that Senna dominated Prost. This is not a biased opinion but mere an observation I made when watching the 2 compete against each other. And I do agree that Prost belongs on the all-time great list but even he would admit that he found his master in Senna.

[Rediscoveryx]

Given Senna's superiority in qualifying (certainly the best modern day qualifier, possibly the greatest of all time), he started almost every race ahead of Prost. I don't know the exact numbers, but I believe Prost outqualified Senna on possibly two or three races. That means that in 30 out of 32 races in McLaren, Prost would start behind Senna. If the two drivers drove an equal race, Senna would win. If Prost drove a better race than Senna he would still have to pass him or hope that Senna retired if he wanted to win. Prost won more than a third of the races in 88 and 89.

I read an interview with Steve Nichols (Senna's race engineer at the time) where he stated that the two driver couldn't be more different in their approach to the races. If Senna took the lead, Prost wouldn't necessarily go after him. If he felt that Senna was the better driver on the day he opted to drive for the points. Going after Senna meant a big risk as Prost knew that Senna wouldn't let him through easily even if Prost was substantially quicker (example: Estoril 1988). It also meant an increased risk of a mechanical failure or running into fuel consumtion problems at the end of the race.

If Prost took the lead things were different. Senna would never let him go without a fight no matter what. He'd rather encounter mechanical problems or spin off than have Prost beat him in a straight fight. For Ayrton it was personal, for Alain it wasn't.

That's also a big reason why the races that Senna led often saw Senna build a lead of 10-15 seconds in the first ten laps before the race settled down. Prost would then have more in reserve and be the faster drive in the later stages when Ayrton had to monitor his fuel load.

[MLC]

I'd like to see a statistic about races won while capitalizing on the teammate's errors. I think it would clearly show that Senna dominated Prost.

1988
Brazil - Prost won (led all laps)
San Marino - Senna won (led all laps)
Monaco - Prost won (Senna driver error)
Mexico - Prost won (led all laps)
Canada - Senna won
United States - Senna won (led all laps)
France - Prost won
Britain - Senna won
Germany - Senna won (led all laps)
Hungary - Senna won (led all laps)
Belgium - Senna won (led all laps)
Italy - Prost engine failure, Senna collision
Portugal - Prost won (led all laps)
Spain - Prost won (led all laps)
Japan - Senna won
Australia - Prost won

So outright, unchallanged wins goes like this:
Senna 5 (San Marino, USA, Germany, Hungary, Belgium)
Prost 4 (Brazil, Mexico, Portugal, Spain)

Inherited wins:
Senna 0
Prost 1 (Monaco)

That leaves the following races where they either raced or someone else led some laps:
Senna 3 (raced and passed Prost in Canada, passed Berger in Britain with Prost nowhere, stalled at start in Japan but passed Prost who had gearbox problems)
Prost 2 (raced and passed Senna in France, Berger led early laps in Australia at full boost otherwise Prost won without challange from Senna)

The only one left is Italy where Berger won. Prost had mechanical problems early while running second to Senna. Senna collided with Schlesser while leading.

Final tally of unchallanged wins ahead of teammate:
Senna 6
Prost 5

So of Prost's 16 races, he won 7 times, finished second to Senna 7 times, and had 2 DNFs. Senna won 8 times, finished second to Prost 3 times, finshed sixth to Prost once, finished fourth to Prost once, and had 3 DNFs.

Hardly domination by Senna. There were no directly inherited wins due to mechanical failure of the other. Monaco was a driver error by Senna. Japan was probably the closest to an inherited win but Prost was able to nurse the car home to second place, so I didn't count that against Senna. Anyway you slice it, these two drivers were pretty equal. Clearly, Senna was faster in qualifying. But Prost was better at winning races that required brains and efficiency (Portugal and Spain).

1989 doesn't have quite the same ease to compare these two because other drivers won races. 1988 was good because basically it was Senna versus Prost for the wins and we can ignore everyone else. In fact, the only times that a MacLaren was beat by another team outright was at Portugal (Senna beat by Capelli, Boutsen, Warwick and Alboreto) and Spain (Senna beat by Mansell and Nannini).

Of course, there was hardly a race where at least one of the drivers didn't complain about some sort of mechanical problem, even if they finished (or won). So I know someone will say that Senna had problems at this race and Prost had problems at that race. Let's face it, neither of these driver actually dominated the other. But it is safe to say that both were head and shoulders above the rest, even without the MP4/4.

Let's leave it to MacLaren Team Manager Joe Ramirez who said, "Senna could drive anything fast; but in a car he liked, Prost was unbeatable."

[Slyder]

Originally posted by Rene
I could not say it better than this.....

Originally written by David Buttery

That is such a bullshit article.

Senna caused the Suzuka 1989 incident.???

Ok, Senna was a ruthless driver, and did some bonehead moves, you can't hide that, but the only difference between Senna and Michael Shumacher is that Senna never pushed off his opponents at the last race to win the championship. Sure, you're going to come with the Suzuka 1990 crap, but I justify that move and it was IMO, necessary for Senna to take Prost out, because that was his way of saying that would not be intimidated on or off-track by Prost and his political bitch Balestre.

This whole incident was triggered by Prost and Balestre, and Senna had nothing to do with it, and had those two played it fair and square in 1989, Senna would have never rammed into Prost the following year.

Jim Clark and Fangio can be the best drivers of all time for all I care, but Senna will always be amongst the greatest.

[Rediscoveryx]

Originally posted by Slyder


That is such a bullshit article.

Senna caused the Suzuka 1989 incident.???

Ok, Senna was a ruthless driver, and did some bonehead moves, you can't hide that, but the only difference between Senna and Michael Shumacher is that Senna never pushed off his opponents at the last race to win the championship. Sure, you're going to come with the Suzuka 1990 crap, but I justify that move and it was IMO, necessary for Senna to take Prost out, because that was his way of saying that would not be intimidated on or off-track by Prost and his political bitch Balestre.

This whole incident was triggered by Prost and Balestre, and Senna had nothing to do with it, and had those two played it fair and square in 1989, Senna would have never rammed into Prost the following year.

Jim Clark and Fangio can be the best drivers of all time for all I care, but Senna will always be amongst the greatest.

While I agree with you that the article wasn't very good, I think you're absolutely out in the blue when you're trying to justify Suzuka 1990. Prost and Balestre are not the same person (and even if they were such a vicious move could never be justified).

"Senna never pushed off his opponents at the last race to win the championship". Well, true considering the fact that Suzuka was the penultimate round

Surely Senna is one of the greatest but if you're trying to glorify Suzuka 1990 then you need to exmine you own bias because no one with a balanced view of the incident could justify Senna's actions that day.

[ruther]

Originally posted by Simioni
Sorry Rene but even taking into account my own bias that article is the biggest pile of crap I've ever seen. Was it written by Holiday?

It´s a very big pile of crap indeed.

And the person who wrote that want to talk about "greatness"...ironic

[Rene]

Originally posted by MLC


1988
Brazil - Prost won (led all laps)
San Marino - Senna won (led all laps)
Monaco - Prost won (Senna driver error)
Mexico - Prost won (led all laps)
Canada - Senna won
United States - Senna won (led all laps)
France - Prost won
Britain - Senna won
Germany - Senna won (led all laps)
Hungary - Senna won (led all laps)
Belgium - Senna won (led all laps)
Italy - Prost engine failure, Senna collision
Portugal - Prost won (led all laps)
Spain - Prost won (led all laps)
Japan - Senna won
Australia - Prost won

So outright, unchallanged wins goes like this:
Senna 5 (San Marino, USA, Germany, Hungary, Belgium)
Prost 4 (Brazil, Mexico, Portugal, Spain)

Inherited wins:
Senna 0
Prost 1 (Monaco)

That leaves the following races where they either raced or someone else led some laps:
Senna 3 (raced and passed Prost in Canada, passed Berger in Britain with Prost nowhere, stalled at start in Japan but passed Prost who had gearbox problems)
Prost 2 (raced and passed Senna in France, Berger led early laps in Australia at full boost otherwise Prost won without challange from Senna)

The only one left is Italy where Berger won. Prost had mechanical problems early while running second to Senna. Senna collided with Schlesser while leading.

Final tally of unchallanged wins ahead of teammate:
Senna 6
Prost 5

So of Prost's 16 races, he won 7 times, finished second to Senna 7 times, and had 2 DNFs. Senna won 8 times, finished second to Prost 3 times, finshed sixth to Prost once, finished fourth to Prost once, and had 3 DNFs.

Hardly domination by Senna. There were no directly inherited wins due to mechanical failure of the other. Monaco was a driver error by Senna. Japan was probably the closest to an inherited win but Prost was able to nurse the car home to second place, so I didn't count that against Senna. Anyway you slice it, these two drivers were pretty equal. Clearly, Senna was faster in qualifying. But Prost was better at winning races that required brains and efficiency (Portugal and Spain).

1989 doesn't have quite the same ease to compare these two because other drivers won races. 1988 was good because basically it was Senna versus Prost for the wins and we can ignore everyone else. In fact, the only times that a MacLaren was beat by another team outright was at Portugal (Senna beat by Capelli, Boutsen, Warwick and Alboreto) and Spain (Senna beat by Mansell and Nannini).

Of course, there was hardly a race where at least one of the drivers didn't complain about some sort of mechanical problem, even if they finished (or won). So I know someone will say that Senna had problems at this race and Prost had problems at that race. Let's face it, neither of these driver actually dominated the other. But it is safe to say that both were head and shoulders above the rest, even without the MP4/4.

Let's leave it to MacLaren Team Manager Joe Ramirez who said, "Senna could drive anything fast; but in a car he liked, Prost was unbeatable."

Excellent post But I am sure the Sennaphiles will remember things differently.....