22 replies to this topic

[Vrba]

Maybe this should go to the Nostalgia forum, maybe not.

Anyway, I decided yesterday to revisit some past era of racing and started with watching 1991 Spanish Grand Prix, the first one on Catalunya circuit.

What did I find worth note:

- TV coverage pretty bad. For 90% of the time only leading group was being shown and if someone disappeared from it, it was very hard to find out what happened to him (e.g. when Senna spun, it took 5 or more laps to get to know was he still in the race). Classification outside top 6 was never shown.

- it was Schumacher's third race and, more worth noting, his first duel with Senna when on slightly wet track they, after Michael passed Mansell for third, tangled for 2nd place on first lap. Senna won the situation routinely (and with slight help of superior horsepower) but neither maintained the concentration and they finished 5-6.

- McLaren deployed plenty of team tactics with Senna letting Berger through and deliberately not pushing hard to deny Mansell 10 points

- overtaking was slightly easier than today but it's hard to be decisive on that as the track was wet

- typical Prost race: he was unseen for most of the race, finishing second

- Senna took different line on main straight to try to prevent Mansell from diving inside him for a few laps.


What do I want to say?
Nothing's changed about team orders and blocking.
This race was in no way better than at least half of the races this season. Cars didn't have most of today's electronics (except gearboxes), they were 35 cm wider and had slicks but neither were they more spectacular to watch nor were the race better. And TV coverage was far worse.

I'll continue to watch 1991 season races, maybe these observations would change.


Hrvoje

[Viss1]

I agree. And the next season everyone was complaining about Mansell's domination. Sound familiar?

[grmpreefan]

I am impressed

Your first post ever not containing any Senna bashing.

Now keep watching 91 season and see how Senna brilliantly wins a championship while struggling against superior Williams machinery once it became reliable.

I know you would find it hard to admit but Senna won 91 championship in INFERIOR machinery.

What am I trying to say?

Only that your beloved MS isnt the only guy to win in inferior machinery.

[Vrba]

Originally posted by grmpreefan
I am impressed

Your first post ever not containing any Senna bashing.

Now keep watching 91 season and see how Senna brilliantly wins a championship while struggling against superior Williams machinery once it became reliable.

I know you would find it hard to admit but Senna won 91 championship in INFERIOR machinery.

What am I trying to say?

Only that your beloved MS isnt the only guy to win in inferior machinery.

Thank you :-)
I remember that season very well, I'm just refreshing details now.
However, Senna had superior machinery in the first part of the season. And when his machinery became inferior, it wasn't unreliable as Williams was in the early part of the season.
And I doubt MS ever won in inferior machinery.

Hrvoje

[grmpreefan]

Originally posted by Vrba



And I doubt MS ever won in inferior machinery.

Hrvoje

WTF???????????????????????????

Not even the infamous T34 Tank of 96?

[jimm]

Originally posted by grmpreefan


WTF???????????????????????????

Not even the infamous T34 Tank of 96?

I think he ment a championship. The only one that might be a WDC in an inferior car would be 1995 against Hill and DC.

[Vrba]

Originally posted by grmpreefan


WTF???????????????????????????

Not even the infamous T34 Tank of 96?

As jimm pointed out correctly, I ment championship.

Hrvoje

[jimm]

Originally posted by Vrba


What do I want to say?
Nothing's changed about team orders and blocking.
This race was in no way better than at least half of the races this season. Cars didn't have most of today's electronics (except gearboxes), they were 35 cm wider and had slicks but neither were they more spectacular to watch nor were the race better. And TV coverage was far worse.

I'll continue to watch 1991 season races, maybe these observations would change.


Hrvoje

1) re: team orders and blocking- A difference between then and today is that the teamorders were used at the END of the season (it was the next to last race) after Berger had no chance at the WDC. This is unlike this year and in years past at Ferrari where they have been used all season long. As far as blocking goes, I'll admit that Senna brought in the modern use of "defensive driving" and sometimes took it too far. However, I can't remember a bad block by him in that race, just a change in line down the front straight (no weaving etc). I thought it was a good fight with both men being brave etc.

2) re: the race not being better than this season- I agree but you picked one of the best races that season. Basically, 91 and 92 were pretty poor in racing terms. I thought that portions of 1993 were much better and 1986-90 were also much better. More passes, a fight between guys on fairly equal footing etc. You should watch those instead. To be honest, if you took away MS this year (or maybe RB equal treatment ;) ) this year would be one of the most competitive in years with 4 or 5 drivers winning races. I think the tire war with grooved tires has brought the needed improvement in mechanical grip without the huge increase in marbles that we usually see with super soft stuff. This has given the drivers the confidence to stick the nose in and try a pass without being afraid of going off because the loss of aero grip is made up with the tires.

I believe I have seen more good passes and side by side racing this year than I have seen in the last 10. The Montoya-Kimi battle reminded me of Arnoux-Gilles Villi. We might have seem more of that earlier with wider slicks. Hard to tell.

3) Re: Prost's drive- If Prost had not been on the outs with the team he might have won that race. He asked for slicks right before the 15 min signal and the team said the did not have time (I believe they already had traction control) to change the tires. He claims that had they done that he would have won the race if he had started on slicks.

[grmpreefan]

I would agree MS beat Hill and Coultard in 95 with inferior chassis.

All his other championships have been in equal or better cars.

[Vrba]

Originally posted by jimm


1) re: team orders and blocking- A difference between then and today is that the teamorders were used at the END of the season (it was the next to last race) after Berger had no chance at the WDC. This is unlike this year and in years past at Ferrari where they have been used all season long. As far as blocking goes, I'll admit that Senna brought in the modern use of "defensive driving" and sometimes took it too far. However, I can't remember a bad block by him in that race, just a change in line down the front straight (no weaving etc). I thought it was a good fight with both men being brave etc.

You're right, no doubt. I remember watching this race for the first time and the Senna-Mansell duel that ended in Mansell passing was very good. I remember I felt quite astonished at the time but somehow now I don't see it as thrilling as back then. I saw a lot in between, obviously.

2) re: the race not being better than this season- I agree but you picked one of the best races that season. Basically, 91 and 92 were pretty poor in racing terms. I thought that portions of 1993 were much better and 1986-90 were also much better. More passes, a fight between guys on fairly equal footing etc. You should watch those instead. To be honest, if you took away MS this year (or maybe RB equal treatment ;) ) this year would be one of the most competitive in years with 4 or 5 drivers winning races. I think the tire war with grooved tires has brought the needed improvement in mechanical grip without the huge increase in marbles that we usually see with super soft stuff. This has given the drivers the confidence to stick the nose in and try a pass without being afraid of going off because the loss of aero grip is made up with the tires.

I believe I have seen more good passes and side by side racing this year than I have seen in the last 10. The Montoya-Kimi battle reminded me of Arnoux-Gilles Villi. We might have seem more of that earlier with wider slicks. Hard to tell.

I watched 1986 Australian Grand Prix, that famous title decider, recently. In one book (published in 1992) it was classified as one of ten best races of all times. I remember several more races from that and earlier years. While that OZ GP was undoubtedly a heart-stopping race, it was more due to unexpected occurences as punctures, spins and unscheduled pit stops.
Given the fact that most passes in that time were due to adjusting boost, it seems to me from my fading memory that that period lacked really spectacular passes.

3) Re: Prost's drive- If Prost had not been on the outs with the team he might have won that race. He asked for slicks right before the 15 min signal and the team said the did not have time (I believe they already had traction control) to change the tires. He claims that had they done that he would have won the race if he had started on slicks.

I didn't know that detail, nice story. In fact it sums up a whole Prost period at Ferrari - a great missed opportunity.

Hrvoje

[Vrba]

Originally posted by grmpreefan
I would agree MS beat Hill and Coultard in 95 with inferior chassis.

All his other championships have been in equal or better cars.

It's hard to say.
While early performances of FW17 seemed more convincing than those of B195, as the season progressed, Schumacher seemed able to do whatever he wanted with the B195.
Don't forget that FW17 needed B spec from Portugal onwards....and that Herbert won two races in B195 notwithstanding the retirements.
But it's possible that FW17 had greater potential than B195 but wasn't developed enough.

Hrvoje

[grmpreefan]

I think the Williams definately better by quite a margin aerodynamically and to a lesser extent mechanically but theres no doubt Schumacher had the better skills to develop the Benetton to the point where he could make up for the aerodynamic deficit with his driving and setup of the car. So I would say for the most part of the year he was at a disadvantage decreasing towards the end of the season. Although the car did not work at all in Adelaide in the final race where they were over a second off the pace.

[jimm]

Originally posted by Vrba


You're right, no doubt. I remember watching this race for the first time and the Senna-Mansell duel that ended in Mansell passing was very good. I remember I felt quite astonished at the time but somehow now I don't see it as thrilling as back then. I saw a lot in between, obviously.

It could be that you knew what was going to happen this time? few of the races I have on tape are as heartpounding the second time around (some of the '93 season being the exception)

Originally posted by Vrba
I watched 1986 Australian Grand Prix, that famous title decider, recently. In one book (published in 1992) it was classified as one of ten best races of all times. I remember several more races from that and earlier years. While that OZ GP was undoubtedly a heart-stopping race, it was more due to unexpected occurences as punctures, spins and unscheduled pit stops.
Given the fact that most passes in that time were due to adjusting boost, it seems to me from my fading memory that that period lacked really spectacular passes.

I thought that race was a nail bitter but again, only if you don't know the outcome. But there are some good battles between teammates in equal cars those years (eg Silverstone 87, Hungary 88), drivers from different cars(eg Mexico 90) and some small teams almost winning (eg Portugal 88, France 90).

YOu should watch Hungary '91. Senna with stood 70+ laps of Mansell and Patrese taking turns trying to slide by. Considering how much faster the Williams was at that point in race trim, it was a great bit of driving to stay first.

Originally posted by Vrba

I didn't know that detail, nice story. In fact it sums up a whole Prost period at Ferrari - a great missed opportunity.

Hrvoje

I got it out of a Motorsport interview he did in 93 right before the season started. Of course, that was his next to last race for Ferrari.

[Vrba]

Originally posted by jimm
....
YOu should watch Hungary '91. Senna with stood 70+ laps of Mansell and Patrese taking turns trying to slide by. Considering how much faster the Williams was at that point in race trim, it was a great bit of driving to stay first. ....

I remember watching that race and feeling angry with Mansell as he didn't manage to win :-)
But IIRC, that was the race in which McLaren (only for Senna) introduced new several kilos lighter chassis. I'm not sure if Honda presented new engine evolution but I think they did.

Also, IIRC, it was done after Senna's constant complains about how Williams became faster so McLaren and Honda intensified development that paid off in Hungary.
Not only there and not only then because towards the end of the season Berger had some poles and I doubt he would have been able to do it if McLaren wasn't on par with Williams.

Of course, 1992 Williams is a completely different story, but I think that it's hard to say that Williams was very much better, if at all, at the end of 1991.

Hrvoje

[senninha]

Originally posted by Vrba
Maybe this should go to the Nostalgia forum, maybe not.


- it was Schumacher's third race and, more worth noting, his first duel with Senna when on slightly wet track they, after Michael passed Mansell for third, tangled for 2nd place on first lap. Senna won the situation routinely (and with slight help of superior horsepower) but neither maintained the concentration and they finished 5-6.

Duel ?

Senna won that situation due superior horsepower?? Due it, he couldn´t keep his car on track as V10 and V8 drivers!!

Do you understand "something" about F1?

In fact the powerful Honda-V12 saved Senna on sllipery track... specially compared with a lighter and with a great curve of HP´s as Ford V-8 and Renault V10...

[senninha]

Originally posted by Vrba



Thank you :-)
I remember that season very well, I'm just refreshing details now.
However, Senna had superior machinery in the first part of the season. And when his machinery became inferior, it wasn't unreliable as Williams was in the early part of the season.

In the 2nd race of the season Senna had to do one "miracle qualifying lap" to keep ahead Patrese in Brazil.

Williams car was born better than Mclaren. Only lacked reliability. I remember Senna complaining about the car (specially heavy Honda V-12) on 1st race of the seaason.

Mansell just wasn´t WDC that year due:

(a) unreliability on the beginning. Mansell´s firsts 6pts was on 4th race at Monaco (Senna had already 40pts);

(b) Mansell spent some time to relegate Patrese as 2nd driver. Until Mexico, Patrese was ahead Mansell and won some races;

© Mansell´s bad luck and dumb manouvres (Portugal and Japan)

(d) Senna reached the maturity. I remember he finished 13 (or 14) races in a row (not counting fuel problems at Brit GP and Germany GP as DNFs).

[Vrba]

Originally posted by senninha


Duel ?

Senna won that situation due superior horsepower?? Due it, he couldn´t keep his car on track as V10 and V8 drivers!!

Do you understand "something" about F1?

In fact the powerful Honda-V12 saved Senna on sllipery track... specially compared with a lighter and with a great curve of HP´s as Ford V-8 and Renault V10...

You probably don't have the very situation before your eyes. Senna accelerated slightly better after Schumacher pulled alongside.
Senna spun a few laps later due to pure driving error, as did Schumacher somewhat later.

Hrvoje

[Vrba]

Originally posted by senninha


In the 2nd race of the season Senna had to do one "miracle qualifying lap" to keep ahead Patrese in Brazil.

So what? Montoya is all the time on pole and what does it mean?

Williams car was born better than Mclaren. Only lacked reliability. I remember Senna complaining about the car (specially heavy Honda V-12) on 1st race of the seaason.

True, Williams was born better. But its teething troubles lasted long enough to enable Senna achieve a huge points lead. What car is better, a fast one that never sees the finish line or slightly slower winner?

Mansell just wasn´t WDC that year due:

(a) unreliability on the beginning. Mansell´s firsts 6pts was on 4th race at Monaco (Senna had already 40pts);

(b) Mansell spent some time to relegate Patrese as 2nd driver. Until Mexico, Patrese was ahead Mansell and won some races;

© Mansell´s bad luck and dumb manouvres (Portugal and Japan)

(d) Senna reached the maturity. I remember he finished 13 (or 14) races in a row (not counting fuel problems at Brit GP and Germany GP as DNFs).

That's true. Mansell was never a driver of Senna's calibre. He needed absolutely best car to get the job done. Senna could do it with equal best one.

Hrvoje

[Sir Frank]

It is great to watch some classic races every now and then, I usually watch some in the winter, when I have my cravings. I think we had some exiting races in 1991, my favourite is the Mexican GP a great race. There is a great difference from the races back then to todays. You could not name the winner before the races back then so easily (not always true) because of retirements and more unexpected things happenning. Nowdays the race is more of a procession, a formailty. The real race nowdays is behind the scenes in the factories. Teams are rarely making mistakes.
I dont have the 1991 Spanish GP taped, but as far as I remember it was a great race. Schumacher in his first wet GP and also Mansell, Senna, Berger fighting with the championship on stake.
I agree that the coverage has improved a lot since then, but we are still missing a lot of overtaking in the races, due to the 'still not so good' coverage.

The MP4/6 of 1991 was a bit slower than the FW14, but it was far more reliable and only lacked some pace (when it started to matter because of Williams solving their reliability problems) in Mexico, Canada, France, Britain, Germany. McLaren and Honda had a huge upgrade mid season and the new McLaren could hold pace a lot better, often being quicker than the Williams and the Ferraris who also closed up to McLaren in terms of speed by France. Senna had a huge points cushion from the first four races and won the championship with the overall better package McLaren. His win in Hungary was brilliant though. Also his whole season

As for the 1995 and the Benetton B195. It was a very difficult car to setup in the first place, Schumachers special talent, or natural born instinct or simply his style of driving (although we know that he can adjust his driving to suit the particular car) was needed. No one except for MS could drive that car at its limit, Berger, Herbert, Alesi all tried, but did not succeed, they could not live with such a nervous car, not even Alesi who propably had the best car controll and reaction time back then.

In the first few races the car has shown some potential, but it was not fast enough nor a steady race car. Williams were faster and also Ferrari who had a very good handling car, although lacking some pace as the season progressed. When Benetton came to Barcelona they discovered a solution to cure the cars ill handling. Schumacher dominated qualifying and the race. He also won Monaco, controlled Montreal, won at Magny Cours. The Benetton team were on another level when it came to race strategy. Often defeating Willams. However looking at DCs late season speed, Damon Hill should have clinched the championship that year, as he had a better car, but also a car that broke down 5 times compared to MSs 2 times. IMO Schumacher had a better car from Spain till France. Only four races.

The B195 might have been a slightly worse package then the FW17 (lacking some speed at most track compared to the Williams, but making up some ground due to its reliabilty), but the Benetton team as a whole was better than the Williams team. Just think about Brasil and Germany if Hill did finish, and likely won, he would have made up 28 points difference only in those 2 GPS, a huge amount considering the 33 point deficit at the end of the season. Also the B195 was a better race car, than qualifying car, often outpacing the Williams by surprise

[jimm]

Originally posted by Vrba


I remember watching that race and feeling angry with Mansell as he didn't manage to win :-)
But IIRC, that was the race in which McLaren (only for Senna) introduced new several kilos lighter chassis. I'm not sure if Honda presented new engine evolution but I think they did.

Also, IIRC, it was done after Senna's constant complains about how Williams became faster so McLaren and Honda intensified development that paid off in Hungary.
Not only there and not only then because towards the end of the season Berger had some poles and I doubt he would have been able to do it if McLaren wasn't on par with Williams.

Of course, 1992 Williams is a completely different story, but I think that it's hard to say that Williams was very much better, if at all, at the end of 1991.

Hrvoje

Remember I said RACE pace was better with the Williams, not qualifying (although it was quite quick). In every race after Germany, the Williams had the legs and was only behind if the Mclaren was in front due to qualifying, the start or pitstops. On equal terms the Williams was quicker with either Mansell or Patrese in the car. I do think that Honda might have detuned the engine in Senna's car a little at the end of the year for reliability and not Berger's in the races. Berger's role was to play rabbit and take away the points and (because of the points lead after Belgum and Hunery fell Senna's way) let Senna be a little conservative. Berger, had a lot of failures (kind of like Rubino now) while Senna was bullet proof (kind of like MS now).

[senninha]

Hungary 91 was one of the best races for Senna's career.

He did the pole-position, after 7(!!) races without a SINGLE pole!! Since Senna was the pole master, we can measure how great was the FW-14.

At race, he suffered a great pressure form BOTH Williams, wich substitute alternatively trying to force Senna do a mistake.

Senna kept the pressure and won!!!

[Simioni]

I'd like to know in which way mclaren was better than williams in 1991. Riccardo bloody Patrese was as quick as Senna as often as not throughout the season, and he got the thick of williams unreliability, not Mansell. Switch the drivers around and Senna would've settled it by Monza.

[Witt]

Originally posted by Simioni
I'd like to know in which way mclaren was better than williams in 1991. Riccardo bloody Patrese was as quick as Senna as often as not throughout the season, and he got the thick of williams unreliability, not Mansell. Switch the drivers around and Senna would've settled it by Monza.

The answer has already been mentioned.

Originally posted by Vrba
True, Williams was born better. But its teething troubles lasted long enough to enable Senna achieve a huge points lead. What car is better, a fast one that never sees the finish line or slightly slower winner?