43 replies to this topic

[coolie]

How could one explain the extraordinarily low number of Ayrton's fastest laps? 161 GPs, 65 poles, 41 wins but only 19 fastest laps. Senna was not exactly the driver who would compromise his maximum attack approach and yet numbers are telling a different story. Prost, in comparison, in his 199 GPs had 41 fastest laps. Strange, isn't it?

[DOHC]

Maybe Prost was a better racer and Senna needed a clean track to be fast?




ducks and runs for cover

[jcbc3]

Originally posted by DOHC
Maybe Prost was a better racer and Senna needed a clean track to be fast?




ducks and runs for cover

So now we are TWO that have seen the light.

[paulsenna1]

Bare statistics never tell the full story... thankfully

Paul.

[jcbc3]

Originally posted by paulsenna1
Bare statistics never tell the full story... thankfully

Paul.

So all those poles were really just an inflated statistic?

[paulsenna1]

If you say so...

Paul.

[jcbc3]

Originally posted by paulsenna1
If you say so...

Paul.

You did.

[paulsenna1]

Maybe his poles were a deflated statistic...

Paul

[Mox]

Maybe Senna was ace in a tight, light car with special qualifying engine and tyres, and not as ace in a heavy car with worn tyres and people to race?

[D-Type]

Let's face it Senna was an ace (in spite of Suzuka 1990). Prost was also an ace. The difference in ability is too close to call.

[jcbc3]

I concur.

I was just playing along with DOHC. Peace, Psenna

[JtP]

Originally posted by coolie
How could one explain the extraordinarily low number of Ayrton's fastest laps? 161 GPs, 65 poles, 41 wins but only 19 fastest laps. Senna was not exactly the driver who would compromise his maximum attack approach and yet numbers are telling a different story. Prost, in comparison, in his 199 GPs had 41 fastest laps. Strange, isn't it?

A large number of Senna's poles were gained by use of the Honda power button, just like the superfast first lap and much breath holding. such things were not repeatable during race conditions and Prost would finish the race with the car in better condition to record times on light tanks. Prost was a much faster driver than press and tv reporters made out, just totally smooth and pure class in a F1 car.

The real difference between the two? prost had been at GPs where drivers were killed. The only GP Senna entered where someone was killed was the one he was killed in.

[Ruairidh]

Originally posted by JtP


The real difference between the two? prost had been at GPs where drivers were killed. The only GP Senna entered where someone was killed was the one he was killed in.

Is that true? I'm not saying it is incorrect, just I've never had to think it through before and it is a surprising fact given Senna's fairly long GP career.

[Ivan]

Yes. First Roland and the himself. There were deaths prior to him getting into F1. But nothing for a long time. Until...

[BorderReiver]

It depends if you count poor Elio or not. However since that was in testing and fairly secluded it's easy for a driver to put it to the back of his mind. It's not happened in front of him (though it did happen in front of Prost and Mansell, who tried to save Elio).

Not sure what this has to do with the difference between Senna and Prost though. . .

[AndreasF1]

It was not a question whether he couldn't rather why didn't he want to.
Senna used to employ what he and other's refered to as "the tactic". He would put the car on pole, and then crush the opposition by driving out some big margin between himself and the others. Usually by mid-race the gap was too big for others to seriously threaten him so he just toned it down. Since the cars were usually quicker on empty fuel tanks , lap times improved towards the end of the race provided that the tires were in good shape. However, since Senna had a big lead at that point of the race there was no need for him to lap any quicker.
His general race pace was also quicker than that of Prost for the most part. There is not question that Senna was the better overtaker and was much more efficient when it came to lapping in traffic. His magnificent performances in Suzuka 1988 or Spa 1990 just reeinforce that point. IMO, Prost just needed to show that he can hold something against Senna, so he just pushed hard for the fastest lap while Senna was on cruise control heading home for another win.

[Ray Bell]

What value was there in fastest laps?

After all, in practice they were important, they gave you the best start on race day and they helped you show a level of superiority that might demoralise the opposition.

But on race day they did nothing to advantage the driver unless he was in a close race for a win. It might have been very different, I suspect, if Senna had been earning championship points for fastest laps in the race...

[coolie]

Just an addition to spice-up the conversation, browsing through Autosport.com and Nigel Roebuck's replies to the public, I bumped into this:
"Dear Nigel,
Do you have the answer to why Ayrton Senna recorded so few "fastest laps" in his career?
Anders Sarbacken

Dear Anders,
Actually, I don't think your question requires 'an answer', as such. It's a fact that, while - to date, anyway - Ayrton set more pole position laps than anyone in history, he had relatively few fastest laps in the race, but quite honestly it wasn't usually necessary! Starting from the pole, as he invariably did, he was so often able to dictate the race, and it was left to other drivers to record 'fastest laps' as they chased him.

Interestingly, his great rival, Alain Prost, had many more fastest race laps than Senna, but far fewer pole positions. Without any question,
Ayrton was quicker over one lap, in qualifying, but Alain was always better when it came to arriving at the perfect race day set-up".

Now what do you think about an expert's "no-view"?

[David Beard]

Originally posted by AndreasF1
Senna used to employ what he and other's refered to as "the tactic". He would put the car on pole, and then crush the opposition by driving out some big margin between himself and the others. Usually by mid-race the gap was too big for others to seriously threaten him so he just toned it down.

Clark used to employ what he and others refered to as "the tactic". He would put the car on pole, and then crush the opposition by driving out some big margin between himself and the others. Usually by mid-race the gap was too big for others to seriously threaten him so he just toned it down.

[Vrba]

Originally posted by coolie
"Actually, I don't think your question requires 'an answer', as such. It's a fact that, while - to date, anyway - Ayrton set more pole position laps than anyone in history, he had relatively few fastest laps in the race, but quite honestly it wasn't usually necessary! Starting from the pole, as he invariably did, he was so often able to dictate the race, and it was left to other drivers to record 'fastest laps' as they chased him.

Interestingly, his great rival, Alain Prost, had many more fastest race laps than Senna, but far fewer pole positions. Without any question,
Ayrton was quicker over one lap, in qualifying, but Alain was always better when it came to arriving at the perfect race day set-up".

This is just what I also think about that. However, Senna did own a fair share of his poles to having qualifying specials and using poles as marketing tool for promoting himself.

Hrvoje

[jcbc3]

There's of course also those other two statistics called "wins" and "Championships" to consider.

[Levike]

Originally posted by Vrba
This is just what I also think about that. However, Senna did own a fair share of his poles to having qualifying specials and using poles as marketing tool for promoting himself.

Hrvoje

[jcbc3]

Originally posted by Vrba ... However, Senna did own a fair share of his poles to having qualifying specials and using poles as marketing tool for promoting himself.

Hrvoje [/B]

Nonsense.

Even I can admit that over one single lap of qualifying Senna WAS faster than Prost. But that does not in my mind make him a better F1 driver than Prost, because I feel that Prost had other weapons in his arsenal.

Same with Michael Schumacher today. What makes him head and shoulders the best is that he's the complete package. JPM and Jacques were/is better overtakers. Hakkinen were faster in single lap qualifying. But no one matches the sum of Michaels qualities (IMO).

[Vrba]

Originally posted by jcbc3


Nonsense.

Even I can admit that over one single lap of qualifying Senna WAS faster than Prost. But that does not in my mind make him a better F1 driver than Prost, because I feel that Prost had other weapons in his arsenal.

Same with Michael Schumacher today. What makes him head and shoulders the best is that he's the complete package. JPM and Jacques were/is better overtakers. Hakkinen were faster in single lap qualifying. But no one matches the sum of Michaels qualities (IMO).

Yes, he was faster than Prost overone lap, probably even faster than most of others who raced against him, I don't doubt that. I would never consider Senna slow.

What I wanted to say (without any desire to provoke or insult) is that Senna's phenomenal qualifying record was helped by two factors: Lotus qualifying specials and Senna's total dedication to poles (not found in other drivers) because of which his races suffered sometimes.

Hrvoje

[KWSN - DSM]

"If you are fast, you are fast"

No one should think that qualifying ANY race car is easy, and being able to place a F1 car on pole, beating out a whole field and a half in half of all races entered is a testament to an extreme talent to drive a race car.

Powerbuttons, autoshifting, ABS, anti-skid, launch control are just tools that the driver have, and have had in F1. Were Prost, Senna, Schumacher, Stewart, Clark all racing in the 1950ies they would be frontrunning, racewinning, pole setting drivers.

Because they were the best there is, and have ever been. Fangio in the 1960ies, 1970ies, 1980ies, 1990ies would be a frontrunning, racewinning, polesetting driver, because he is one of them as well.

Even today in the an age of mony will get you somewhere, the ultimate talent still find the competitive drives. Racing changes and certain traits are more needed in some era's than others, what counts is winnignraces and championships and if Senna could win 3 WDC's, set more Pole positions than any driver in history, then it mean zero that he "only" had 19 fastest laps.

[Ferrari_F1_fan_2001]

Senna pulled his fast laps out from the green lights and prior to and after pit stops, thus ensuring himself a wide margin over the rest of the competitors. His tyres probably took a tremendous amount of strain during those blitzes and he probably didnt need to go any faster than what was needed. Prost on the other hand was a master conserver of the car and probably had more in reserve (the better tyres and other marginal factors) to be able to pull out the quicker lap. But in my mind, Senna had no equal to him in terms of wringing the neck of a car lap after lap until the car wasnt physically capable of doing so, bar Schumacher.

[BorderReiver]

Originally posted by Vrba
Lotus qualifying specials . . . .

Not this again . . .

There was no such thing as a Lotus Qualifying special, and if there was it would seem that the only Lotus driver who ever had access to it in that period was Senna.

[Vrba]

Originally posted by BorderReiver


Not this again . . .

There was no such thing as a Lotus Qualifying special, and if there was it would seem that the only Lotus driver who ever had access to it in that period was Senna.

Yes....

Hrvoje

[D-Type]

Originally posted by Ferrari_F1_fan_2001
~ wringing the neck of a car lap after lap until the car wasnt physically capable of doing so ~

That's great phrasing - it applies to Nuvolari, but not Varzi; to Gilles, but not Scheckter; to Peterson, but not Andretti; to Senna, but not Prost; etc. (I won't mention the present crop until they retire and we can judge the whole career)

But who sets the pulses going, who would I rather watch?

[jcbc3]

If I have EVER seen a driver wringing a car by the neck it was the Portugese GP of 1987. Prost hunting down Berger.

Prost could turn it on when he needed to. Don't assume otherwise.

[KWSN - DSM]

Originally posted by jcbc3
If I have EVER seen a driver wringing a car by the neck it was the Portugese GP of 1987. Prost hunting down Berger.

Prost could turn it on when he needed to. Don't assume otherwise.

I concur.

Prost was a GREAT F1 driver.
Senna was a GREAT F1 driver.
Stewart was a GREAT F1 driver.
Clark was a GREAT F1 driver..
Fangio was a GREAT F1 driver.
Schumacher is a GREAT F1 driver.

All of them can only be judged on their performance while they are active, and what they acheived while active. They all defined F1 while active, and that is as good as you can get. The question of how good or bad either would be against any of the other drivers, outside their own times mean nothing.

Schumacher is not less of a GREAT driver for being active in a time where the cars are flush with electronic gizmos. Fangio is not less of a GREAT driver for having won against smaller fields. Senna is not less of a GREAT driver for being able to qualify a F1 car, that have the benefit of qualifying engines and tires during part of his career.

They ALL!!! stand and stood heads and shoulders above the rest of the field during their careeer, and that is the only fact the really count.

[DOHC]

Originally posted by D-Type

That's great phrasing - it applies to Nuvolari, but not Varzi; to Gilles, but not Scheckter; to Peterson, but not Andretti; to Senna, but not Prost; etc. (I won't mention the present crop until they retire and we can judge the whole career)

Add Clark, add Rindt, perhaps a few more.

Who could fail to be impressed by e.g. Clark's 1967 season, in which he caught up from losing a lap at Monza due to a puncture, only to run out of gas when once again in the lead; or, at Watkins Glen, when he had pulled out a gap big enough to nurse his care home to a win, even though it was limping with a collapsed rear right suspension. Incredible.

Rindt too showed similar astounding feats, with his 1970 Monaco win as a truly superb drive. Silly, perhaps, but watching his last lap there, during which he set the lap record and overtook Brabham -- who undoubtedly made a mistake -- was a thrilling experience. A minute and 23 seconds that you'll never forget.

On the sad side, note how many of those drivers we put in "it applies to NN but not to.." that are dead. It seem that you are better off to be in the "but not to" category.

[St.Hubbins]

Originally posted by KWSN - DSM


I concur.

Prost was a GREAT F1 driver.
Senna was a GREAT F1 driver.
Stewart was a GREAT F1 driver.
Clark was a GREAT F1 driver..
Fangio was a GREAT F1 driver.
Schumacher is a GREAT F1 driver.

All of them can only be judged on their performance while they are active, and what they acheived while active. They all defined F1 while active, and that is as good as you can get. The question of how good or bad either would be against any of the other drivers, outside their own times mean nothing.

Schumacher is not less of a GREAT driver for being active in a time where the cars are flush with electronic gizmos. Fangio is not less of a GREAT driver for having won against smaller fields. Senna is not less of a GREAT driver for being able to qualify a F1 car, that have the benefit of qualifying engines and tires during part of his career.

They ALL!!! stand and stood heads and shoulders above the rest of the field during their careeer, and that is the only fact the really count.

QED


What interests me, which has been mentioned on several occasions here, is Senna's ability to open up large gaps in the early parts of races. This was, without much doubt, a trait of his from his earlies days of racing (certainly I have read comments from Martin Brtundle, Clavin Fish etc on this subject), and was often put down to the fact that he had that bit extra on cold tyres, or where grip in general was less predictable. Okay, so that all makes some sense, and would also give a good indication as to why Senna was so strong in wet/changeable conditions. But Schumacher is also the pick of the current field when the track is wet, yet seldom do we see him dominating from the front in the early part of dry races. So I wonder why this might be. Is it the fact that he doesn't feel the need to (indicating perhaps that he is more of a 'complete package' than Senna)?

[Simioni]

Not only did Senna score very few fastest race laps, if you consider only those set in a completely dry race his career total probably doesn´t even reach double digits.

There´s no mystery to it at all. A glimpse at pretty much any race win from Senna in the dry will explain why. First, not every race in the 80´s and early 90´s demanded a pitstop for tires, and Senna usually avoided them. That meant a controlled conservative race pace (which happens to go against the popular belief of Senna being the balls out hard-charger). Second, before refuelling fastest laps were usually set in the final third of the race when the car was at its lightest. By then, Senna would be either controlling the race from the lead, or not in contention at all. Very rare were the races like Suzuka 89 in which Senna enjoyed a competitive pace and still had to fight to the line.

Fastest laps are now and were then a pretty meaningless statistic if one doesn´t consider the circunstances in which they were set. It would be uneducated to draw parallels between fastest race laps and sheer race pace, and anyone doing so is looking for simplistic and convenient conclusions. Senna´s race pace is evidenced by the fact that excluding his first year with lowly toleman he won more races than any of his contemporaries in the course of his career, including the professor.

[D-Type]

I am sure that had there been a point for fastest lap, the statistics for all drivers would be somewhat different.

[KWSN - DSM]

I think that the current era of multiple pitstops dictate a fast pace throughout the race, the winning driver needing the fastest possible pace through all two, three or four stints.

This to an extent explaing why Michael Schumacher is the driver with the most fastest laps.

For those who like pitstops, this is part of their arguments "pro" having them. They give us drivers, who will be forced to be as fast as possible throughout the race.

I personally do not see this to be the complete "truth" to what works and what does not. I thik that we see a furious struggle for two laps, then the race settles in, and basically is won and lost based on pitstops, number of pitstops and how well they are executed.

Michael Schumacher obviously (to me at least) likes to be the driver with the fastest lap, and he does have the tools in the cars he has raced for Ferrari, but equally obvious (to me at least) his in lap AND!! out lap show that he is indeed the fastest driver out there, be it fully fueled, or basically empty.

Senna did not need to set fastets laps, he needed to take Pole and lead the race from the start. When leading he needed to conserve the car.

[AndreasF1]

This might be slightly off topic but it deserves to get mentioned since there is an increasing number of people on this forum that make Alain Prost out to be more than he was. Personaly, I was always a Prost fan even all the way up to 1991 right before he got fired from Ferrari. I have watched every F1 race since the early 80's and have been to many GP's. I can tell you out of experience and memory that during Senna's and Prost time at McLaren there was never a shadow of doubt by the media or anybody as who was truly the man to beat. Senna was always viewed as the one who had a slim edge over Prost. People were surprised if Senna was not on pole for a race, and if he was not seriously challanging for the win something was wrong. Certainly the statistics show that Prost was up there with him, but the reality is that Senna was driving on a different level. The statistics will show that Prost won in Monaco 1988, but anybody that saw the race knows who was the better racer that weekend. And there have been many races just like that, just watch some of the early races in 1993 and you get an idea. So lets keep things in perspective and remember that statistics don't give us the whole picture.

[billthekat]

Prost was a GREAT F1 driver.
Senna was a GREAT F1 driver.
Stewart was a GREAT racing driver.
Clark was a GREAT racing driver..
Fangio was a GREAT racing driver.
Schumacher is a GREAT F1 driver.

Subtle difference, but one more dictated by the nature of how international motor sports has changed, pretty much a matter of time and place and not necessarily a matter of talent or ability.

[scheivlak]

Originally posted by AndreasF1
The statistics will show that Prost won in Monaco 1988, but anybody that saw the race knows who was the better racer that weekend.

I see what you're trying to say, but this is not the smartest way to put it into words ;)
Senna was waaaaayyy faster but in the end his demonstration of speed was his undoing. Pretty much understandable that he fled home rightaway....

[AndreasF1]

Prost won because Senna screwed up. Senna didn't loose that race because Prost beat him. Senna beat himself that day. Statistics don't show that. That was my point. Prost could not have know that Senna was going to hit the guardrail later in the race.

[DOHC]

Originally posted by AndreasF1
So lets keep things in perspective and remember that statistics don't give us the whole picture.

...

Prost won because Senna screwed up.

Well, but to finish first you first have to finish.

What about Senna's win in Monaco 1992? Mansell was visibly quicker and was all over Senna's rear wing and driving circles around his gearbox without being able to overtake.

You win some and you lose some. You have some luck and some misfortunes. The win goes to the first driver who crosses the finish line, not to the one who "deserved" to win. It's not figure-skating after all.

At the end of the day it is the stats that count. Everybody plays the same game. 10 points for victory, etc. and then you add it up to see who wins the championship. Who says that the pole-sitter or the fastest lap driver deserves to win?

The rules determine the winner. They might not tell you who's best, but who cares, the game is about winning. Winning races, winning championships. It's hard to do, but the best do it.

[Ferrari_F1_fan_2001]

Originally posted by D-Type

That's great phrasing - it applies to Nuvolari, but not Varzi; to Gilles, but not Scheckter; to Peterson, but not Andretti; to Senna, but not Prost; etc. (I won't mention the present crop until they retire and we can judge the whole career)

But who sets the pulses going, who would I rather watch?

the only time my pulse races in F1 these days is the start of the F1 season in Melbourne or at a wet race. Other than that, we've got a pretty good idea who's going to win and its not Woobens in his red car.

[man]

The following data demonstrates Senna's strategy for races. Also interesting to note the lap at which the fastest lap was achieved.

Fastest laps British GP 1988 (drying track) :

Nigel Mansell Williams / Judd lap 48 1'23.308
Nelson Piquet Lotus / Honda lap 48 1'23.452 0.144
Derek Warwick Arrows / Megatron lap 48 1'23.588 0.280
Ayrton Senna McLaren / Honda lap 49 1'23.595 0.287
Satoru Nakajima Lotus / Honda lap 48 1'23.655 0.347

Senna won by 23 seconds.


Fastest laps German GP 1988:

Alessandro Nannini Benetton / Ford lap 40
Alain Prost McLaren / Honda lap 21 2'04.888 1.856
Ayrton Senna McLaren / Honda lap 18 2'05.001 1.969
Andrea de Cesaris Rial / Ford lap 42 2'05.413 2.381

Senna won by 14 seconds

Fastest laps Monaco GP 1989:

Alain Prost McLaren / Honda lap 59 1'25.501
Martin Brundle Brabham / Judd lap 58 1'25.882 0.381
Ayrton Senna McLaren / Honda lap 23 1'26.017 0.516

Senna won by 52 seconds




1990 US GP:

Gerhard Berger McLaren / Honda lap 34 1'31.050
Pierluigi Martini Minardi / Ford lap 66 1'31.568 0.518
Ayrton Senna McLaren / Honda lap 18 1'32.178 1.128

Senna won by 9 seconds

1990 Canadian GP (drying tack) :

Gerhard Berger McLaren / Honda lap 70 1'22.077
Nigel Mansell Ferrari / Ferrari lap 63 1'22.839 0.762
Nelson Piquet Benetton / Ford lap 58 1'22.854 0.777
Alain Prost Ferrari / Ferrari lap 63 1'23.078 1.001
Ayrton Senna McLaren / Honda lap 63 1'23.375 1.298

Senna won by 10 seconds


1991 US GP fastest laps:

Jean Alesi Ferrari / Ferrari lap 49 1'26.758
Alain Prost Ferrari / Ferrari lap 68 1'26.845 0.087
Nelson Piquet Benetton / Ford lap 67 1'26.965 0.207
Ayrton Senna McLaren / Honda lap 39 1'27.153 0.395

Senna won by 16 seconds


1991 Monaco GP fastest laps:

Alain Prost Ferrari / Ferrari lap 77 1'24.368 - - 142.006
Nigel Mansell Williams / Renault lap 53 1'24.850 0.482
Riccardo Patrese Williams / Renault lap 34 1'25.147 0.779
Gerhard Berger McLaren / Honda lap 6 1'25.228 0.860
Ayrton Senna McLaren / Honda lap 32 1'25.250 0.882

Senna won by 18 seconds

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think its fair to say, Senna tried to 'break' the opposition in the early laps when the cars were at their heaviest. The strategy more often than not appeared to work...for Senna at least.

[911]

Originally posted by man
The following data demonstrates Senna's strategy for races. Also interesting to note the lap at which the fastest lap was achieved.

Fastest laps British GP 1988 (drying track) :

Nigel Mansell Williams / Judd lap 48 1'23.308
Nelson Piquet Lotus / Honda lap 48 1'23.452 0.144
Derek Warwick Arrows / Megatron lap 48 1'23.588 0.280
Ayrton Senna McLaren / Honda lap 49 1'23.595 0.287
Satoru Nakajima Lotus / Honda lap 48 1'23.655 0.347

Senna won by 23 seconds.


Fastest laps German GP 1988:

Alessandro Nannini Benetton / Ford lap 40
Alain Prost McLaren / Honda lap 21 2'04.888 1.856
Ayrton Senna McLaren / Honda lap 18 2'05.001 1.969
Andrea de Cesaris Rial / Ford lap 42 2'05.413 2.381

Senna won by 14 seconds

Fastest laps Monaco GP 1989:

Alain Prost McLaren / Honda lap 59 1'25.501
Martin Brundle Brabham / Judd lap 58 1'25.882 0.381
Ayrton Senna McLaren / Honda lap 23 1'26.017 0.516

Senna won by 52 seconds




1990 US GP:

Gerhard Berger McLaren / Honda lap 34 1'31.050
Pierluigi Martini Minardi / Ford lap 66 1'31.568 0.518
Ayrton Senna McLaren / Honda lap 18 1'32.178 1.128

Senna won by 9 seconds

1990 Canadian GP (drying tack) :

Gerhard Berger McLaren / Honda lap 70 1'22.077
Nigel Mansell Ferrari / Ferrari lap 63 1'22.839 0.762
Nelson Piquet Benetton / Ford lap 58 1'22.854 0.777
Alain Prost Ferrari / Ferrari lap 63 1'23.078 1.001
Ayrton Senna McLaren / Honda lap 63 1'23.375 1.298

Senna won by 10 seconds


1991 US GP fastest laps:

Jean Alesi Ferrari / Ferrari lap 49 1'26.758
Alain Prost Ferrari / Ferrari lap 68 1'26.845 0.087
Nelson Piquet Benetton / Ford lap 67 1'26.965 0.207
Ayrton Senna McLaren / Honda lap 39 1'27.153 0.395

Senna won by 16 seconds


1991 Monaco GP fastest laps:

Alain Prost Ferrari / Ferrari lap 77 1'24.368 - - 142.006
Nigel Mansell Williams / Renault lap 53 1'24.850 0.482
Riccardo Patrese Williams / Renault lap 34 1'25.147 0.779
Gerhard Berger McLaren / Honda lap 6 1'25.228 0.860
Ayrton Senna McLaren / Honda lap 32 1'25.250 0.882

Senna won by 18 seconds

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think its fair to say, Senna tried to 'break' the opposition in the early laps when the cars were at their heaviest. The strategy more often than not appeared to work...for Senna at least.

man,

Good analysis. It does contribute to the theory, "Win at the slowest speed possible."