48 replies to this topic

[blip]

Why was Senna so unbelievably dominant in Qualifying as compared to racing? What was the "special" thing he brought to Qualifying that others could not? There were several races where Senna outqualified Prost by ungodly margins - Monaco '88 and '89, and Japan '89 by over 1 second! Yet he wasn't quite so dominant on race-day. I'd love to read any articles/books that talk about this - does anyone know of any?

[Ross Stonefeld]

I saw a comment a few yeras ago from a former Goodyear guy, and it was sprinkled within another piece; that during the late 80s there was something specific to the way the Goodyear tire worked. It had to be used very heavily on the warmup lap for a qualifying attempt to get all the 'shine' off the tire and into its ideal state. Senna discovered this before anyone else. Its not something you'd discover in testing unless your driver was hauling ass on his outlaps. So Senna found it first, capitalised on it, then eventually (a year or so?) Goodyear figured out what was going on and let all their teams in on the secret.

Not sure how true it is, but it makes a lot of sense

[eoin]

I started following F1 in 1995 so I am just basing this on what I have read.

One reason might be that Sennas driving style consumed more fuel than prost(and most drivers) which doesn't matter much in qualifying but can have a huge effect over a race distanced.
Also Prost was supposed to be very good on tyres and often pulled Senna in when his tyres(sennas) were gone off.

[blip]

Originally posted by Ross Stonefeld
Not sure how true it is, but it makes a lot of sense

I would have thought Prost - the Professor and all that - would have caught on to something like that. After all, he could/would have studied Senna's style pretty thoroughly with access to his telemetry. Interesting theory, though!

Originally posted by eoin
One reason might be that Sennas driving style consumed more fuel than prost(and most drivers) which doesn't matter much in qualifying but can have a huge effect over a race distanced.

That makes a lot of sense.

[SeanValen]

Another part to consider, is probabley his technical feedback combined with his talent, I remember hearing his engineers or engine friends, when Senna came back from a lap, he described the telemetry exactly as it was on the read out, computer etc, and this would amaze his team, In typical Murray Walker fashion "He would set out a time for himself, and achieve it, tell his engineers this time is achievable, he knew the lap as if his mind was the best at knowing how precise the limit is, Schumacher M said this of Senna, he's very precise.

"It was a speciality of the late great Ayrton Senna, to set a out a time, and go last and get pole, he would do it, time and time again."

Technically Senna was brilliant, we know he speaked to his engine friends, to get the best out of it and stuff.

And most of all, combine all that, with him just being so fast and talented, just have to look at his Monaco lap, 1991 was it, he's just able to enter a zone of concentration, and in essense I think we have to consider he was very spiritual and showed extreme concentration, where you questioned, does he have extra powers etc Some of his laps were just too good etc, and you have to enter that into the equation of reasoning.

[jimm]

Originally posted by eoin
I started following F1 in 1995 so I am just basing this on what I have read.

One reason might be that Sennas driving style consumed more fuel than prost(and most drivers) which doesn't matter much in qualifying but can have a huge effect over a race distanced.
Also Prost was supposed to be very good on tyres and often pulled Senna in when his tyres(sennas) were gone off.

this is wrong. Senna was considered almost as good as Prost at saving his tires.

[blip]

Thanks SeanValen! I was curious as to why he couldn't apply this talent so dominantly in the races, though. Surely the same skills would have been usable in the race, unless (as suggested) tyres or fuel were over-riding concerns.

Unfortunately, we only got to see one race where Senna could refuel (Brazil '94), but the fact that he was beaten by Schumacher is clouded by allegations of TC and illegal fuelling techniques for Benetton. It would have been really interesting to see if Senna could translate his qualifying talent into race-day performances once the burden of fuel and tyre conservation was lifted.

[SeanValen]

Originally posted by blip
Thanks SeanValen! I was curious as to why he couldn't apply this talent so dominantly in the races, though. Surely the same skills would have been usable in the race, unless (as suggested) tyres or fuel were over-riding concerns.

Unfortunately, we only got to see one race where Senna could refuel (Brazil '94), but the fact that he was beaten by Schumacher is clouded by allegations of TC and illegal fuelling techniques for Benetton. It would have been really interesting to see if Senna could translate his qualifying talent into race-day performances once the burden of fuel and tyre conservation was lifted.

I wouldn't compare Senna and Schumacher unless they had a full season in the same cars and good reliability, some people do, but my preference not too.


Senna in races? I think he was brilliant in wet races, when dry, I think he went for every lap, that until 1993 season which I think showed a new smarter Senna, his Monaco 93 performance in the dry was very mature, that whole season he was as good in quali as in races, even Hakkinen commented, Senna was very professional in 1993, it was ashame he did when he did, because I think Senna was about to be more smart, and maybe a touch more of Prost in races, this is my personal opinion of cource, Senna in speed was always at peak, but his approaches could always be improved upon, I think the 93 season was a example of this, too bad he died, but great 1993 season. But his need for winning races would probabley dent his consistency in the season, this where Prost gained points, but Senna wanted to win, I think he could of picked up 6 easy points at Brazil 1994, but he didn't want to finished behind Schumi with his home crowd, who expected a win, and remember his Williams wasn't at it's best at the time, consider the gap to Damon Hill in the same car, and Senna was impressive in overcoming car disadvantages like Schumi in 1996 and 1995

[ViMaMo]

Senna: " ..... when you reach this limit, touch this limit, you can go a little bit more.... with your mental and physical powers and will power you can achieve great things... " remember that?

Also " ... the car is an extension of your body, because you are strapped tightly to the seat and can feel every movement of the car"

he could destroy prost in qualifying because he was willing to walk on the edge, which prost feared to. its that peak, where a driver might hesitate to push a bit more, senna i think really knew what his limits were and was more passionate in his approach (like qualifying more than a second faster than prost at monaco even though he knew prost could not do it), maybe that made him walk that line throughout the weekend.

whereas prost was a master tactician, who would rather not lose his car trying for that extra hundredth of a sec, he knew when he could push, maybe he did save his tyres a bit and hence posted more fastest laps.

Senna was a master while driving on worn tyres, why do you think he won the battle against mansell in his lotus, mansell had to make the extra stop while senna drove around the worn tyres but still took the victory.

[shaggy]

Originally posted by vivian

he could destroy prost in qualifying because he was willing to walk on the edge, which prost feared to.

This is probably too strong a statement.
Looking back at the Forix data, when it was readily available, Senna beat Prost by over a second only when Prost himself stated that Senna was receiving special help from Honda.
Prost did admit once that Senna was faster than him in qualifying by about 0.2 seconds or so, which coincides with how I remember the Forix data, but Prost also stated that the times he lost by over a second were not "real."

Even when Senna was faster than Prost, Alain still managed to get very similar race results.

shaggy

[blip]

Originally posted by shaggy
Looking back at the Forix data, when it was readily available, Senna beat Prost by over a second only when Prost himself stated that Senna was receiving special help from Honda.

Monaco '88 was well before any possibility of that. However, Monaco was Senna's playground - his record in Qualifying against Prost there is spectacular:

1985:
1 Ayrton Senna 1'20.450
5 Alain Prost 1'20.885 (+0.435)

1986:
1 Alain Prost 1'22.627
3 Ayrton Senna 1'23.175 (+0.548)

1987:
2 Ayrton Senna 1'23.711
4 Alain Prost 1'25.083 (+1.372)

1988:
1 Ayrton Senna 1'23.998
2 Alain Prost 1'25.425 (+1.427)

1989:
1 Ayrton Senna 1'22.308
2 Alain Prost 1'23.456 (+1.148)

Originally posted by vivian
Senna was a master while driving on worn tyres, why do you think he won the battle against mansell in his lotus, mansell had to make the extra stop while senna drove around the worn tyres but still took the victory.

As far as I know, Mansell's pitstop was for a slow puncture, not worn tyres. Tremendous drive by Senna, anyway

[fingers]

Originally posted by eoin
I started following F1 in 1995 so I am just basing this on what I have read.

One reason might be that Sennas driving style consumed more fuel than prost(and most drivers) which doesn't matter much in qualifying but can have a huge effect over a race distanced.
Also Prost was supposed to be very good on tyres and often pulled Senna in when his tyres(sennas) were gone off.

It was all about decisions made and determination, Senna really felt it was adamant he secured pole for various different reasons, Prost always concentrated on the race making sure he was thinking only of the championship no matter what. Its just different desires Prost was the best championship contender and Senna was out and out the fastest driver.

[ViMaMo]

"Senna beat Prost by over a second only when Prost himself stated that Senna was receiving special help from Honda"

well, senna was the master of street circuits, if you look at the other races eg. detroit, he was on pole with his lotus. he really knew how to drive there. and that piece of statement is just an excuse from prost. what kind of special help could have senna got, that resulted in nearly 1 second deficit, talking purely in terms of power, it must have been huge, 50-100 bhp maybe? impossible. if senna could talk to his engineers and set his car up according to his liking thats not special help.
ofcourse in the end the race matters and prost did match senna for pace, and did slightly better.

[masterhit]

Senna and Prost both got the job done in their different ways.

Ron Dennis was quoted as saying that Senna was able to qualify a car on the limit and yet have enough awareness of what was going on around him (due to it being so natural) that he had enough mental concentration in reserve to recall details such as the fuel readout for a given corner exactly to three decimal places. I'm not talking about just looking at the dash whilst driving and reading it out over the radio, but getting out of the car and telling the engineers the exact readings for a given section of the circuit for the laps he had just driven - something which amazed each technical crew he worked with.

Senna being younger would try to use his raw pace to take pole, then try to control the race. He would concentrate his effort into sprinting away at the start, often by more than a second per lap. This is why Senna's fastest laps are not frequent - by the time the fuel load had lowered, generally speaking the job was done, by which time he was coasting. His effort was in the early laps, after that he could go at a canter.

Fangio used to do the same - it outpsyches the weaker opponents, who think "he's too quick, sod it" and basically give up the fight and settle for a lower position. Only the really determined like Prost saw past that.

Prost would use his greater experience to set up the car to suit his delicate, deceptively fast style, and try to attack when the fuel load came down, the car was at its lightest, and tyre and brake wear had taken its toll on those who had charged early on.

The results were pretty similar, and this is an overgeneralisation, for like all greats they adapted according to circumstances. Both were capable of tactics and bravery, of stirring drives through the field or simply obliterating everyone else.

So whilst the short answer is that Senna liked to be out front to dictate the pace, if you look at the races in detail, it's more complicated.

Also Prost had an ability to recall setups for each individual race for each team he drove for, like the great chess players recall matches.

Its these sort of things that makes you realise what makes the greats different from the rest of us.

Regarding the quote at the start of this thread about Senna being fast in qualifying 'compared to racing', yes that's true in terms of wins, but in terms of laps led he was very dominant.

Equally remember that Senna had four years less experience than Prost, and that counts - look at MS's racecraft now compared to his early days, he is doing the same thing as Prost, using the 'less is more' philosophy, and Senna was starting to do so in '93, which was his ninth season. Schumacher arguably started in 2000, also his ninth season, plus breaking a leg like Schumacher did that year makes you reassess what you need to do to get the job done. The main thing though is it comes with time and experience as well, and Prost had quite simply, four very valuable years more experience than Senna, who had it all to learn, and fast.

Another thing to bear in mind is that Senna had a reason to attack - the rules said that only your best 11 scores counted, unlike today, where all results count. You would drop your five worst scores, so a poor, safe result was not necessarily the best approach. And back then reliabilty was not as good generally due to the computer based machine tooling/CAD engineering evolving over the years, bigger budgets etc, so had he been racing with today's reliability, he would have made the finish more often, as would any driver.

So... it aint that straightforward. Formula 1 is a complex sport, and if we honestly had the answers we'd make millions in the bookies.

[blip]

Masterhit

[POLAR]

Senna was the most focused driver on the field, besides, at that time there were huge differences between qualifying and race setups, so its no surprise that those two factors together made the pole record possible.
If I was a Senna fan, I would have a lot more fun.

Polar

[Rene]

I also remember Prost saying that on some circuits there was no point in trying 100% flat out, as it wasn't worth the risk to try and beat Senna to the Pole, as Senna was always willing to risk more....so better to qualify second and worry about the race...where it wasn't enough for Senna to out qualify Prost by 1-100th, when he could make a gap of a second....in this regard I really admire Senna....

[fingers]

Originally posted by vivian
"Senna beat Prost by over a second only when Prost himself stated that Senna was receiving special help from Honda"

well, senna was the master of street circuits, if you look at the other races eg. detroit, he was on pole with his lotus. he really knew how to drive there. and that piece of statement is just an excuse from prost. what kind of special help could have senna got, that resulted in nearly 1 second deficit, talking purely in terms of power, it must have been huge, 50-100 bhp maybe? impossible. if senna could talk to his engineers and set his car up according to his liking thats not special help.
ofcourse in the end the race matters and prost did match senna for pace, and did slightly better.

The good ole paranoid conspiracy theorists say things like that about Honda and Prost was one of them, there's only one reason they would favour if they were to anyway and that is because Senna was the faster of the 2 its not rocket science.

[Levike]

Originally posted by masterhit
Senna and Prost both got the job done in their different ways.

Ron Dennis was quoted as saying that Senna was able to qualify a car on the limit and yet have enough awareness of what was going on around him (due to it being so natural) that he had enough mental concentration in reserve to recall details such as the fuel readout for a given corner exactly to three decimal places. I'm not talking about just looking at the dash whilst driving and reading it out over the radio, but getting out of the car and telling the engineers the exact readings for a given section of the circuit for the laps he had just driven - something which amazed each technical crew he worked with.

Senna being younger would try to use his raw pace to take pole, then try to control the race. He would concentrate his effort into sprinting away at the start, often by more than a second per lap. This is why Senna's fastest laps are not frequent - by the time the fuel load had lowered, generally speaking the job was done, by which time he was coasting. His effort was in the early laps, after that he could go at a canter.

Fangio used to do the same - it outpsyches the weaker opponents, who think "he's too quick, sod it" and basically give up the fight and settle for a lower position. Only the really determined like Prost saw past that.

Prost would use his greater experience to set up the car to suit his delicate, deceptively fast style, and try to attack when the fuel load came down, the car was at its lightest, and tyre and brake wear had taken its toll on those who had charged early on.

The results were pretty similar, and this is an overgeneralisation, for like all greats they adapted according to circumstances. Both were capable of tactics and bravery, of stirring drives through the field or simply obliterating everyone else.

So whilst the short answer is that Senna liked to be out front to dictate the pace, if you look at the races in detail, it's more complicated.

Also Prost had an ability to recall setups for each individual race for each team he drove for, like the great chess players recall matches.

Its these sort of things that makes you realise what makes the greats different from the rest of us.

Regarding the quote at the start of this thread about Senna being fast in qualifying 'compared to racing', yes that's true in terms of wins, but in terms of laps led he was very dominant.

Equally remember that Senna had four years less experience than Prost, and that counts - look at MS's racecraft now compared to his early days, he is doing the same thing as Prost, using the 'less is more' philosophy, and Senna was starting to do so in '93, which was his ninth season. Schumacher arguably started in 2000, also his ninth season, plus breaking a leg like Schumacher did that year makes you reassess what you need to do to get the job done. The main thing though is it comes with time and experience as well, and Prost had quite simply, four very valuable years more experience than Senna, who had it all to learn, and fast.

Another thing to bear in mind is that Senna had a reason to attack - the rules said that only your best 11 scores counted, unlike today, where all results count. You would drop your five worst scores, so a poor, safe result was not necessarily the best approach. And back then reliabilty was not as good generally due to the computer based machine tooling/CAD engineering evolving over the years, bigger budgets etc, so had he been racing with today's reliability, he would have made the finish more often, as would any driver.

So... it aint that straightforward. Formula 1 is a complex sport, and if we honestly had the answers we'd make millions in the bookies.

Great post... !

[Levike]

Originally posted by SeanValen


I wouldn't compare Senna and Schumacher unless they had a full season in the same cars and good reliability, some people do, but my preference not too.


Senna in races? I think he was brilliant in wet races, when dry, I think he went for every lap, that until 1993 season which I think showed a new smarter Senna, his Monaco 93 performance in the dry was very mature, that whole season he was as good in quali as in races, even Hakkinen commented, Senna was very professional in 1993, it was ashame he did when he did, because I think Senna was about to be more smart, and maybe a touch more of Prost in races, this is my personal opinion of cource, Senna in speed was always at peak, but his approaches could always be improved upon, I think the 93 season was a example of this, too bad he died, but great 1993 season. But his need for winning races would probabley dent his consistency in the season, this where Prost gained points, but Senna wanted to win, I think he could of picked up 6 easy points at Brazil 1994, but he didn't want to finished behind Schumi with his home crowd, who expected a win, and remember his Williams wasn't at it's best at the time, consider the gap to Damon Hill in the same car, and Senna was impressive in overcoming car disadvantages like Schumi in 1996 and 1995

Great post !


I have the opinion also, that the 'Schumacher beat Senna in 94' statement from Schumi fans is absolutely wrong.

In Brazil, Senna spun out while closing the gap by tremendous margin, not forget that Schumacher took the lead in the pit, and not forget that the Benetton was far from legal that time.


In Japan, he was pushed out from the race by Hakkinen

In Imola, he was leading, pulling the gap, and posted the third best laptime of the race in his first flying lap.

In al the three race he was on pole, and was beating Hill by a tremendous margin.

I simply can not imagine, why on earth people says Schumacher the new king was beating him in all these races. Yes, the points are true, but the season was all from over, and the pace was really on Senna's side, it's all was just simply bad luck (which was all on his side all of his Carreer, unlike Schumacher)


Levi

[ViMaMo]

it does not make sense to compare the two again, has anyone reached a verdict as to who is better, its just an opinion and its impossible to say who is faster, its just an opinion in the end and an incomplete season to argue about.
Senna did talk to the engineers, and especially the engine guys, he wanted to know everything about the car, if its the engine almost everything about the engine that would affect his lap times, like boost pressure, he wanted to know and in the end knew almost exactly how he wanted his engine to be setup and the whole car.
But there is this video where senna goes out and claims the pole, later goes on two more runs to ruin prost's time by setting faster and faster times until he was more than a second faster, i wish somebody could explain the expression of prost, he was either thinking "impossible, how can he be so fast" or "why in the world is he doing that for" and Prost shakes his head ever so slightly, with a very noticeable frown....

[Simioni]

Originally posted by Ross Stonefeld
I saw a comment a few yeras ago from a former Goodyear guy, and it was sprinkled within another piece; that during the late 80s there was something specific to the way the Goodyear tire worked. It had to be used very heavily on the warmup lap for a qualifying attempt to get all the 'shine' off the tire and into its ideal state. Senna discovered this before anyone else. Its not something you'd discover in testing unless your driver was hauling ass on his outlaps. So Senna found it first, capitalised on it, then eventually (a year or so?) Goodyear figured out what was going on and let all their teams in on the secret.

Not sure how true it is, but it makes a lot of sense

That is incorrect. It is well reported that qualifying tires were so incredibly soft that drivers were forced to crawl around in their outlaps otherwise the tires would be worn before the end of the flying lap. I have a few qualifying sessions from the time on tape and that´s what you usually see.

It is true that Senna´s reign in qualifying coincided with the banning of qualifying tires in 1992, but the reason he was no longer poling all the time was due solely to the dominance of the 92/93 williams, evidenced by the average gap to Berger remaining consistent from 1991 to 1992. Once he gotback to competitive machinery in 94 he topped the grid in the 3 races he took part in, with regular race tires.

[ruther]

Originally posted by SeanValen
Another part to consider, is probabley his technical feedback combined with his talent, I remember hearing his engineers or engine friends, when Senna came back from a lap, he described the telemetry exactly as it was on the read out, computer etc, and this would amaze his team, In typical Murray Walker fashion "He would set out a time for himself, and achieve it, tell his engineers this time is achievable, he knew the lap as if his mind was the best at knowing how precise the limit is, Schumacher M said this of Senna, he's very precise.

"It was a speciality of the late great Ayrton Senna, to set a out a time, and go last and get pole, he would do it, time and time again."

Technically Senna was brilliant, we know he speaked to his engine friends, to get the best out of it and stuff.

And most of all, combine all that, with him just being so fast and talented, just have to look at his Monaco lap, 1991 was it, he's just able to enter a zone of concentration, and in essense I think we have to consider he was very spiritual and showed extreme concentration, where you questioned, does he have extra powers etc Some of his laps were just too good etc, and you have to enter that into the equation of reasoning.

[ruther]

Originally posted by shaggy

...Prost himself stated that Senna was receiving special help from Honda.

shaggy

Why do you think Prost's nose is so big?!

[Vrba]

Originally posted by shaggy


This is probably too strong a statement.
Looking back at the Forix data, when it was readily available, Senna beat Prost by over a second only when Prost himself stated that Senna was receiving special help from Honda.
Prost did admit once that Senna was faster than him in qualifying by about 0.2 seconds or so, which coincides with how I remember the Forix data, but Prost also stated that the times he lost by over a second were not "real."

Even when Senna was faster than Prost, Alain still managed to get very similar race results.

shaggy

At Monza in 1989, Senna outqualified Prost by 1.790 seconds. Mind you, Monza is simple, high-speed circuit, not one of so-called driver's circuits. Prost and Senna had sister cars. For me, there are obvious indications that Senna was receiving special help from Honda by then, especially as it was already known that Prost was to move to Ferrari. Prost's reactions about those qualifying gaps were on the similar trail and, while I'd be first to dismiss most of any driver's whingings as just plain justifications, it's possible that he was right.

Hrvoje

[masterhit]

Originally posted by Vrba

At Monza in 1989, Senna outqualified Prost by 1.790 seconds. Mind you, Monza is simple, high-speed circuit, not one of so-called driver's circuits. Prost and Senna had sister cars. For me, there are obvious indications that Senna was receiving special help from Honda by then, especially as it was already known that Prost was to move to Ferrari. Prost's reactions about those qualifying gaps were on the similar trail and, while I'd be first to dismiss most of any driver's whingings as just plain justifications, it's possible that he was right.

Hrvoje

Everything is possible of course, but before reaching that conclusion, there are other things which may explain it. As far as I can recall, and maybe someone can correct me on this, Prost has not spoken out about that race as an example of favouritism, usually when he complains about a lack of power compared to Senna it tends to be Sukuka 1988 he talks of, yet he had a gearbox problem in that race. Balestre even went as far to order that the gearbox be taken apart, to determine if there really was a problem (maybe he would have sided with Prost had there not been) which is strange as as far as I recall there was no official protest from any team...

Anyway, I think there are reasons to explain such a gap in Monza.

Firstly, Prost never liked to ride kerbs. Monza at the time was a track where if you set up your car to ride the kerbs well, and absolutely went for it, you could find a lot of time. This was something Prost simply loathed the thought of doing, beacuse of what it did to the car, how it felt, due to the absorbtions etc.

Secondly, setup. Monza puts a lot of stress on the rear tyres and the engine and brakes. Prost may have gone for a race setup in qualifying, and deliberately underplayed his hand to give Senna a false sense of security.

Thirdly, if I recall correctly, Senna was out to prove a point that day, whereas Prost could have been certain he had pole. Senna seemed out of the game in that qualifying, as he had been suffering problems with his engine, and had to have an engine change. This took so long that it looked like he may not qualify at all, he didn't really turn a lap until at the last moment. Prost could well have thought he had it in the bag, or Prost may simply have decided to take advantage of his extra laps than Senna to focus on a race setup.

[Rene]

Originally posted by masterhit


Everything is possible of course, but before reaching that conclusion, there are other things which may explain it. As far as I can recall, and maybe someone can correct me on this, Prost has not spoken out about that race as an example of favouritism, usually when he complains about a lack of power compared to Senna it tends to be Sukuka 1988 he talks of, yet he had a gearbox problem in that race. Balestre even went as far to order that the gearbox be taken apart, to determine if there really was a problem (maybe he would have sided with Prost had there not been) which is strange as as far as I recall there was no official protest from any team...

Anyway, I think there are reasons to explain such a gap in Monza.

Firstly, Prost never liked to ride kerbs. Monza at the time was a track where if you set up your car to ride the kerbs well, and absolutely went for it, you could find a lot of time. This was something Prost simply loathed the thought of doing, beacuse of what it did to the car, how it felt, due to the absorbtions etc.

Secondly, setup. Monza puts a lot of stress on the rear tyres and the engine and brakes. Prost may have gone for a race setup in qualifying, and deliberately underplayed his hand to give Senna a false sense of security.

Thirdly, if I recall correctly, Senna was out to prove a point that day, whereas Prost could have been certain he had pole. Senna seemed out of the game in that qualifying, as he had been suffering problems with his engine, and had to have an engine change. This took so long that it looked like he may not qualify at all, he didn't really turn a lap until at the last moment. Prost could well have thought he had it in the bag, or Prost may simply have decided to take advantage of his extra laps than Senna to focus on a race setup.

Do you not remember that then Honda Chairman Mr Kawamoto admitted that Honda favoured Senna's samari style over Prosts' computer style....and that indeed the Honda engineers worked for one above the other....while you may believe Prost has an issue with Monza his 3 wins and 1 Pole Position (qualified 12 times in the top 5 out of 13 seasons) at the circuit vs many of the giants of F1 history seems to contradict your theory (only MS and Piquet have more wins in Monza)

So we are left either believing your theory about Prost and Monza, which Prosts career history seems to contradict ...or we can believe what the chairman of Honda said...which was that Honda favoured Senna : ....

[Levike]

Originally posted by Rene


Do you not remember that then Honda Chairman Mr Kawamoto admitted that Honda favoured Senna's samari style over Prosts' computer style....and that indeed the Honda engineers worked for one above the other....while you may believe Prost has an issue with Monza his 3 wins and 1 Pole Position (qualified 12 times in the top 5 out of 13 seasons) at the circuit vs many of the giants of F1 history seems to contradict your theory (only MS and Piquet have more wins in Monza)

So we are left either believing your theory about Prost and Monza, which Prosts career history seems to contradict ...or we can believe what the chairman of Honda said...which was that Honda favoured Senna : ....

Okay...but how can you explain such a gap ? I'think Honda's help can do 1 or 2 tenths of a second MAYBE, but not a whole second or above. I think that the whole theory about Honda's Senna fovourism was jut Prost's whining, and not else...


Levi

[The Fazz]

Honda may have preferred Senna's banzai STYLE, this does not necessarily mean they'd give technical preference to him. Remember that Senna's race at Monza 89 ended with a plume of Honda smoke.

[hedges]

Originally posted by The Fazz
Honda may have preferred Senna's banzai STYLE, this does not necessarily mean they'd give technical preference to him. Remember that Senna's race at Monza 89 ended with a plume of Honda smoke.

And how exactly does that indicate horse power equality? I don't think Senna was ever noted for taking it easy and it's possible if not likely he would have taken power over reliability (as long as it wasn't too unreliable).

[mp4]

If I may be so bold...
I think Ayrton was so amazing in qualifying because he was far more focused than his opponents.
Much like Niki Lauda, (Ferrari 312T, 1975...), he had some sort of ability to sense what the car was doing and compensate for any ills before they occured. Niki called it something like, " feeling what my ass was doing and going from there..."
I am paraphrasing ;)
I know it's true that Ayrton could have backed off, in a race situation (Monza '87...) but it just wasn't his style.
He was a scary driver, at the best of times, but he will always be one of the best.
Mr. S. has certainly assumed some of the traits of "The Professor". There's nothing wrong with that.

Cheers

[bock16]

Originally posted by Rene
Do you not remember that then Honda Chairman Mr Kawamoto admitted that Honda favoured Senna's samari style over Prosts' computer style...

I remember this, however, if I recall correctly, it was Prost who said that Mr Kawamoto admitted this to him, not that Mr Kawamoto admitted it publically???

[masterhit]

I just remembered one thing... with regards to Monza 1989, by this time it was an open secret that Prost was going to Ferrari. Pretty much every team would then immediately make sure that all new developments on the car were assigned to the driver who was staying with the team.

Again, doesn't seem like conspiracy, but as I said earlier, anything is possible. Nobody fully knows what goes on behind closed doors, though I do think that just because a quote from one of the Honda people sounds like the engineers liked Senna more does not prove that Senna was given better treatment. An opinion poll or a answer to a question is entirely based on the question you choose to ask. This is based on a number of things , including timing. If you or I had asked a Honda man who the Honda engineers cheer for, and one was staying with your team, another going to Ferrari, I'd be more likely to say the one staying. I'm not saying that's the case, just saying for the sake of this discussion that we think of all things pro and con. In between probably lies the truth.

[Rene]

I'll let Prost answer for me (I think he knows a little more about this situtation than even the biggest expert on this board)

Taken from his interview in F1 Racing on his relationship with Senna

"At the end of '88 I was very pleased for the team - we were first and second in the championship, and I really wasn't too upset that he won the title; I'd won it twice already by then, it wasn't a problem."7

"For '89, though, I was worried about Honda. And I think my biggest problem was that I never had the relationship with them that Ayrton did. From the beginning, it was something I never felt I had under control. I wouldn't have cared very much if they'd simply preferred one driver in the team - but the way they handled the situation was very difficult for me, because Senna and I had very different driving styles."

"I never understood why Honda took his side so much. It wasn't that I thought it was a question of the Brazilian sales marked or the French market, or anything like that. It was more a human thing. I worked with Honda again last year - now as a team owner - and it struck me again: I think the Japanese just work differently. In a team, they always favour someone over the rest. I've heard it said about their motorcycle teams as well."

"Let me give you an example. At one point in '88, the last year we were allowed to run turbos, I asked for some specific changes to the engine to suit my driving style and we worked on it for two days at Paul Ricard. At the end of that test I was very happy - but at the next race, one week later, they never put that strategy on my engine."

"Then we went to the French Grand Prix - at Ricard - and suddenly the engine was just as I had wanted! You understand what I'm saying? Ayrton and I raced for two seasons together in the McLaren-Hondas, and at both the French Grands Prix I was on pole position and won the race. Everyone said, 'Oh look, it's Prost in front of his home crowd', and that sort of thing. It was nothing like that; it was just that at those races I had something which enabled me to fight..."

If you won't believe what one of the two involved have to say on this, than you certainly won't believe my views on this either....

[Sith]

Yes Senna was amazing in Q! More so how he could do it making sure he crossed the line as the flag would fall, not allowing anyone else to have a chance of beating his time. I was on the Mclaren pitwall during the final Q session at Rio 89', Senna already had the pole, but he came out again, and you just knew he was gonna go faster! Which he did! That was his trade mark in Q, forever pushing himself to new heights! It must also be noted that Prost took a few poles in 88 and 89. Much to Senna's suprise.

[Simioni]

Originally posted by Rene
I'll let Prost answer for me (I think he knows a little more about this situtation than even the biggest expert on this board)

Taken from his interview in F1 Racing on his relationship with Senna




If you won't believe what one of the two involved have to say on this, than you certainly won't believe my views on this either....

Are you for real? How more biased to Prost can you get beyond quoting the man himself?

What about that quote from one of Honda men who said Senna was carrying 1k rpms more out of parabolica, which afforded him a considerable speed advantage for most of the straight?

Now it's true that Senna was Honda's protege and that Prost suffered through part of 89 because of that, but to say Honda were deliberately detuning his engines is ridiculous. It's reported that the engine suited Senna's style more, but when Prost refers to Senna "samurai" style maybe he should also consider Senna's japanese-like devotion to the development of the engine and the countless hours he used to spend with the engineers in order to get the most out of their unit.




As to why Senna's excelling efforts in qualifying didn't always translate into race wins, it's all down to the simplicity of qualifying compared to the race and all its variables often outside the driver's control. Qualifying is about maximizing the equipment over a single lap, in a race there are (or at least there used to be) compromises to be made. In Senna's day, it wasn't all about pushing to the limit lap after lap, particularly in the watch-the-fuel-gauge turbo era. Senna suffered with that in his lotus years when they had the thirsty Renaults. There's reliability to consider, and the fact that's far easier for the car to last one qualifying lap than it is to complete a race distance of 60-70 laps. In Senna's day it was normal to average 3-4 mechanical DNFs in a season. Then there are the starts, traffic, pistops and everything else that makes racing a complete different and less straight-foward exercise than qualifying. But the same circunstances that led Senna to lose several races from pole also allowed him to win 8 times from two poles during seasons 92-93. The suggestion that his racecraft was defficient relative to his qualifying pace is just another myth born out of selective interpretation of statistics.

[Rene]

No one said Prost's engine was detuned, but rather it was usually set up the way Senna liked rather than the way Prost liked....

I guess this coming year we will have an excellent test to see if Honda continues such behavior....Button better hope he likes the same powerband that Sato likes...

[The Fazz]

Come on Rene. Let this rest. Prost was no one's victim. Prost had a close relationship with McLaren as Senna did with Honda. We all know that engine power is not everything.

[Yelnats]

Senna's had an absoulute need to dominate in qualifying, a passion he shared with Giles Villeneuve who felt that a fastest lap in qualifying (or race) proved more about your driving skills than winning through a brilliant stratagic drive. Prost of course was a different animal and exemplified the surprising French trait of logic (they broght us the metric system) and a dispassionate vision that placed end results above flashy displays of courage.

Several years ago I watched a facinating interview with Prost at the wheel driving back to his hotel after qualifying behind Senna for, I believe, the French GP. His comment on the Senna/Prost qualifying situation was that he used his front tires differently and this made it difficult for him to get them into the proper heat zone in just one lap. This may have been an excuse but it emphasised that Prost realised that there was more to his qualifying second than Honda favouritisim.

Before we give too much credence to Prosts complaints about Honda we should recall that Prost was accused of political manuverings that aliented his team-mates and put them at a disadvantage within the team. He was used to all the attention and was frustrated when his ploys failed with Senna as a team-mate. This began in his early years at Renault with Rene Arnoux but came to an end with Senna as his team-mate who did most of his manuvering on track (or in the garages). It's easier for the faster qualifier to get the teams attention and there is no reason why Prost should be an exception.

James Hunt put this in perspective early in his carreer. He had just joined McLaren and immediatly outqualified his McLaren team-mate Jochiem Mass, heir apparent to the number one driver title, by over a second. From then on he enjoyed number one driver status. James later commented in his blunt upper school way, that you can have "Number One Driver" tattoed on your forehead but if you haven't got the speed it's means nothing.

[Fortymark]

Originally posted by Rene
No one said Prost's engine was detuned, but rather it was usually set up the way Senna liked rather than the way Prost liked....

I guess this coming year we will have an excellent test to see if Honda continues such behavior....Button better hope he likes the same powerband that Sato likes...

McLaren F1 site:

While Steve Nichols's MP4/4 design had been winning the final championship of the turbo era, Neil Oatley had been hard at work on McLaren's first chassis for the return to normally aspirated, but now 3.5 litre engines. Although the end result was the same - McLaren winning both Constructors' and Drivers' Championships - there was no surprise that they didn't quite enjoy the same domination as 1988.
However, a McLaren led every race but Portugal (where Senna started from pole), and he and Prost won ten of the 16 races, Prost with four to Senna's six, although it was the Frenchman who claimed the Drivers' title with just three retirements to the Brazilian's nine non-scores.
But that just tells half the story. It was a year in which Prost became increasingly paranoid about his teammate. They fell out at Imola, when Prost felt that Senna had breached a no passing agreement. Prost went further at Monaco where Senna scored a superb victory, apparently without second gear. At Monza Prost accused Honda of favouring Senna and would then reveal that he was leaving the team. Earlier in the year, he had written off a monocoque at Phoenix, the first such accident he'd had in five and a half years with the team. Three races later, he and Senna collided at the Suzuka chicane, and even though neither of them scored points in the last two races, the championships still went to McLaren.
Against this intensely political background, McLaren and Honda provided the best combination for the best two, if different, drivers in the field. Oatley's design still followed similar lines to those before, but weight shaving continued throughout the year, although it also suffered a handling imbalance. The team also introduced a complete new rear end, based around a transverse gearbox, midway through the season.
Honda, meanwhile, made a phenomenal effort, with five different specifications of engine for various conditions, circuits and situations. They reaped their reward, but there was a human cost. And it was interesting that Senna suffered more mechanical failures than Prost...

[Taxi]

how many times did Senna outqualified Prost in 1988 and 1999?

[Rene]

Originally posted by Taxi
how many times did Senna outqualified Prost in 1988 and 1999?

26 - 4

[Simioni]

28-4

[ruther]

conclusion: Barrichello is better than Prost

[Rene]

Originally posted by Simioni
28-4

Oops...you're right my bad...

[bock16]

Originally posted by ruther
conclusion: Barrichello is better than Prost

Prost outqualified Barrichello 16-0 in 1993

[Taxi]

How many times did Berger outqualified Senna from 1990-1992?

[Slyder]

It's interesting that Prost to this day keeps whinging about the supposed special treatment by Honda towards Senna.

If this were true, don't you think they would've given him a more reliable car? He had more mechanical failures than Prost (5 in total), and he still whines about Senna having special treatment?

[ruther]

Originally posted by bock16
Prost outqualified Barrichello 16-0 in 1993