planetf1.com

Fiki wrote:

F1 MERCENARY wrote:I will ALWAYS put Prost ahead of Senna because with Prost, guys can say all the nonsensical things they want, but NO ONE EEEEEEVER didn't commit to a corner if they were contesting it against Prost.

I do too, but I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean in your explanation.

Zoue wrote:I don't recall Senna having more physical contact with other drivers more than anyone else. He was committed, certainly, but although he never gave way if he could help it I don't see how that's different from Alonso or Hamilton these days. Alesi famously showed that even a rookie driver need have nothing to fear if his balls were big enough.

Sometimes I wish I could see all the races from those years again and see whether my views on Senna would change. I mostly followed F1 via BBC with Murray and Hunt, and RTBF (French-speaking Belgian TV) and remember the interview Jackie Stewart had with Senna. I found Senna's answer deeply troubling. He got involved in more physical contact than was sporting, and certainly than was safe. It would be interesting to know what Senna thought about safety privately, but his attitude on track was one of extreme arrogance. The responsibility of avoiding an accident was put squarely in the hands of the other driver. So much for 'racing etiquette'.

I know I've said this before, but I think that were outright speed is concerned, Prost conceded very little to Senna. But where willingness to take enormous risks is concerned, there we have a clear winner in Senna.

Zoue wrote:Bottom line is that as good as Prost was he was fairly comprehensively beaten on track by Senna when they were team mates. I know some try to make out that Prost somehow avoided much mechanical mishap by being gentler on his car but that's more myth than anything actually proven. But Prost rarely had an answer to Senna's speed and without trying to diminish Prost's talent - he was definitely one of the all-time greats for me - it's hard to put him higher than someone he couldn't match and only managed to beat through retirements.

In my estimation Senna is the fastest driver I have ever seen in action myself. But best isn't synonymous with speed only, though I think that the team that Senna's speed did make the team shift towards him rather than Prost. According to Lauda, the same thing happened to him when Prost proved to be the quicker man. The difference with Senna, is that both Lauda and Prost had very similar ways about going racing; they both looked to the car as the tool that had to deliver the result in the first place. Take the team focus off the driver whose method this is, and he is in trouble. Team focus is the prime reason why Prost left McLaren for Ferrari, and it was Nigel Mansell who suffered from the loss of team focus.

I honestly don't believe there really is a bottom line when deciding who is 'best'. It certainly doesn't do to only put outright speed there.

BIB: yes I agree, outright speed isn't the only barometer for best and I also agree that "best" is very subjective. And Piquet showed how a canny tortoise can overcome a reckless hare after he was compromised by his accident in 1987 and yet still secured the title. But if a driver is demonstrably slower than another they have quite a lot of work to do to make up that deficiency in other areas and I'm not sure I'd agree that Prost showed that he was better than Senna in any specific scenario.

But at the same time I think sometimes Senna's "will to win" tends to be over-exaggerated and ends up with him sounding like some dangerous wild man you wouldn't want to be anywhere near and I don't think that's true at all. He was a very competent driver and for the majority of the time I don't think it could be said that he was reckless. People tended to move aside because he was so much faster than them anyway, bit like they used to do with Schumacher

Raw stats show Senna Crashed/Spun etc out of 13.1% of races he started (21/161). For Prost it's 11.1% (20/199).

Hardly the huge chasm you would expect if Senna took far greater risks?

mikeyg123 wrote:Raw stats show Senna Crashed/Spun etc out of 13.1% of races he started (21/161). For Prost it's 11.1% (20/199).

Hardly the huge chasm you would expect if Senna took far greater risks?

It'd be interesting to know what percentage of those crashes / spins involved contact with a 2nd car.

At a guess I reckon the gap would widen significantly in the favour of Prost in that instance.

mikeyg123 wrote:Raw stats show Senna Crashed/Spun etc out of 13.1% of races he started (21/161). For Prost it's 11.1% (20/199).

Hardly the huge chasm you would expect if Senna took far greater risks?

Not every hit results in a crash, and crashing out isn't necessarily the consequence of contact with another competitor. Spinning out also is not necessarily related to contact with others. I think the raw data isn't giving us a clear picture. I don't know where Jackie Stewart got his numbers, but his statement wasn't contested I believe. Except obviously by Senna himself. It is perhaps helpful to say that this interview was in 1992. But I can't help but wonder whether it helped Senna to reflect on how he went racing.

Zoue wrote:

Fiki wrote:

F1 MERCENARY wrote:I will ALWAYS put Prost ahead of Senna because with Prost, guys can say all the nonsensical things they want, but NO ONE EEEEEEVER didn't commit to a corner if they were contesting it against Prost.

I do too, but I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean in your explanation.

Zoue wrote:I don't recall Senna having more physical contact with other drivers more than anyone else. He was committed, certainly, but although he never gave way if he could help it I don't see how that's different from Alonso or Hamilton these days. Alesi famously showed that even a rookie driver need have nothing to fear if his balls were big enough.

Sometimes I wish I could see all the races from those years again and see whether my views on Senna would change. I mostly followed F1 via BBC with Murray and Hunt, and RTBF (French-speaking Belgian TV) and remember the interview Jackie Stewart had with Senna. I found Senna's answer deeply troubling. He got involved in more physical contact than was sporting, and certainly than was safe. It would be interesting to know what Senna thought about safety privately, but his attitude on track was one of extreme arrogance. The responsibility of avoiding an accident was put squarely in the hands of the other driver. So much for 'racing etiquette'.

I know I've said this before, but I think that were outright speed is concerned, Prost conceded very little to Senna. But where willingness to take enormous risks is concerned, there we have a clear winner in Senna.

Zoue wrote:Bottom line is that as good as Prost was he was fairly comprehensively beaten on track by Senna when they were team mates. I know some try to make out that Prost somehow avoided much mechanical mishap by being gentler on his car but that's more myth than anything actually proven. But Prost rarely had an answer to Senna's speed and without trying to diminish Prost's talent - he was definitely one of the all-time greats for me - it's hard to put him higher than someone he couldn't match and only managed to beat through retirements.

In my estimation Senna is the fastest driver I have ever seen in action myself. But best isn't synonymous with speed only, though I think that the team that Senna's speed did make the team shift towards him rather than Prost. According to Lauda, the same thing happened to him when Prost proved to be the quicker man. The difference with Senna, is that both Lauda and Prost had very similar ways about going racing; they both looked to the car as the tool that had to deliver the result in the first place. Take the team focus off the driver whose method this is, and he is in trouble. Team focus is the prime reason why Prost left McLaren for Ferrari, and it was Nigel Mansell who suffered from the loss of team focus.

I honestly don't believe there really is a bottom line when deciding who is 'best'. It certainly doesn't do to only put outright speed there.

BIB: yes I agree, outright speed isn't the only barometer for best and I also agree that "best" is very subjective. And Piquet showed how a canny tortoise can overcome a reckless hare after he was compromised by his accident in 1987 and yet still secured the title. But if a driver is demonstrably slower than another they have quite a lot of work to do to make up that deficiency in other areas and I'm not sure I'd agree that Prost showed that he was better than Senna in any specific scenario.

But at the same time I think sometimes Senna's "will to win" tends to be over-exaggerated and ends up with him sounding like some dangerous wild man you wouldn't want to be anywhere near and I don't think that's true at all. He was a very competent driver and for the majority of the time I don't think it could be said that he was reckless. People tended to move aside because he was so much faster than them anyway, bit like they used to do with Schumacher

And there I was, trying not to include Schumacher's antics and attitude in my post. I think it's possible to follow a line from Senna through Schumacher to Verstappen Jr. Self belief is paramount at their level, but the sport risks being squeezed out of the picture when sportsmanship is relegated to the bin in search of money.

Fiki wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:Raw stats show Senna Crashed/Spun etc out of 13.1% of races he started (21/161). For Prost it's 11.1% (20/199).

Hardly the huge chasm you would expect if Senna took far greater risks?

Not every hit results in a crash, and crashing out isn't necessarily the consequence of contact with another competitor. Spinning out also is not necessarily related to contact with others. I think the raw data isn't giving us a clear picture. I don't know where Jackie Stewart got his numbers, but his statement wasn't contested I believe. Except obviously by Senna himself. It is perhaps helpful to say that this interview was in 1992. But I can't help but wonder whether it helped Senna to reflect on how he went racing.

If he was taking far greater risks would you not expect that to result in more race ending incidents when you get a very large bank of data?

Fiki wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:Raw stats show Senna Crashed/Spun etc out of 13.1% of races he started (21/161). For Prost it's 11.1% (20/199).

Hardly the huge chasm you would expect if Senna took far greater risks?

Not every hit results in a crash, and crashing out isn't necessarily the consequence of contact with another competitor. Spinning out also is not necessarily related to contact with others. I think the raw data isn't giving us a clear picture. I don't know where Jackie Stewart got his numbers, but his statement wasn't contested I believe. Except obviously by Senna himself. It is perhaps helpful to say that this interview was in 1992. But I can't help but wonder whether it helped Senna to reflect on how he went racing.

How do you know that what Stewart said wasn't contested when we don't have the access for opinion that we do now?

I look at Stewart's barbed comments today regarding Hamilton and see him as much a hater as anything else, the stats say it all and it's amusing the caveats some would look to make.

Jezza13 wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:Raw stats show Senna Crashed/Spun etc out of 13.1% of races he started (21/161). For Prost it's 11.1% (20/199).

Hardly the huge chasm you would expect if Senna took far greater risks?

It'd be interesting to know what percentage of those crashes / spins involved contact with a 2nd car.

At a guess I reckon the gap would widen significantly in the favour of Prost in that instance.

10 for Senna and 9 for Prost.

mikeyg123 wrote:

Jezza13 wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:Raw stats show Senna Crashed/Spun etc out of 13.1% of races he started (21/161). For Prost it's 11.1% (20/199).

Hardly the huge chasm you would expect if Senna took far greater risks?

It'd be interesting to know what percentage of those crashes / spins involved contact with a 2nd car.

At a guess I reckon the gap would widen significantly in the favour of Prost in that instance.

10 for Senna and 9 for Prost.

Wow mickey. Only 10 for Senna in his entire career & only 1 more than Prost? I would've sworn it was more than that.

Just off the top of my head I can say Rosberg Australia 85, Mansell Belgium 86, Prost Suzuka 89 & 90, Schumacher France 92.

Thats 1/2 of them.

Amazing.

mikeyg123 wrote:

Fiki wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:Raw stats show Senna Crashed/Spun etc out of 13.1% of races he started (21/161). For Prost it's 11.1% (20/199).

Hardly the huge chasm you would expect if Senna took far greater risks?

Not every hit results in a crash, and crashing out isn't necessarily the consequence of contact with another competitor. Spinning out also is not necessarily related to contact with others. I think the raw data isn't giving us a clear picture. I don't know where Jackie Stewart got his numbers, but his statement wasn't contested I believe. Except obviously by Senna himself. It is perhaps helpful to say that this interview was in 1992. But I can't help but wonder whether it helped Senna to reflect on how he went racing.

If he was taking far greater risks would you not expect that to result in more race ending incidents when you get a very large bank of data?

Yes and no. Once your reputation as a merciless/ruthless overtaker is established, drivers will tend to finish their race rather than risk you ending their race. That will have an effect on your statistics.

I'm not sure how aware of F1 Senna was during the years immediately prior his first season, but Prost had already seen fellow drivers have race-ending accidents and even die. 1982 and Ferrari is a good example of why a driver like Prost might wish to be careful around other cars, rather than risk life and limb. Literally.

pokerman wrote:

Fiki wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:Raw stats show Senna Crashed/Spun etc out of 13.1% of races he started (21/161). For Prost it's 11.1% (20/199).

Hardly the huge chasm you would expect if Senna took far greater risks?

Not every hit results in a crash, and crashing out isn't necessarily the consequence of contact with another competitor. Spinning out also is not necessarily related to contact with others. I think the raw data isn't giving us a clear picture. I don't know where Jackie Stewart got his numbers, but his statement wasn't contested I believe. Except obviously by Senna himself. It is perhaps helpful to say that this interview was in 1992. But I can't help but wonder whether it helped Senna to reflect on how he went racing.

How do you know that what Stewart said wasn't contested when we don't have the access for opinion that we do now?

I look at Stewart's barbed comments today regarding Hamilton and see him as much a hater as anything else, the stats say it all and it's amusing the caveats some would look to make.

I'm not aware of Stewart's coments regarding Hamilton these days; the F1 coverage the British fans and I enjoyed then is no longer available to me since the BBC lost the contracts. So I can't comment on them, even if I were to read them. Having said that, I'm no fan of Hamilton's and might not take them the same way an unconditional follower might.

If you know of people who contested Stewart's views on Senna's many 'brushes' with other drivers, please share their comments.

Jezza13 wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

Jezza13 wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:Raw stats show Senna Crashed/Spun etc out of 13.1% of races he started (21/161). For Prost it's 11.1% (20/199).

Hardly the huge chasm you would expect if Senna took far greater risks?

It'd be interesting to know what percentage of those crashes / spins involved contact with a 2nd car.

At a guess I reckon the gap would widen significantly in the favour of Prost in that instance.

10 for Senna and 9 for Prost.

Wow mickey. Only 10 for Senna in his entire career & only 1 more than Prost? I would've sworn it was more than that.

Just off the top of my head I can say Rosberg Australia 85, Mansell Belgium 86, Prost Suzuka 89 & 90, Schumacher France 92.

Thats 1/2 of them.

Amazing.

In fairness Prost had the majority of his in his early career whilst Senna's were fairly spread out but it's interesting how you remember all of Senna's but not Prost's. It shows how these things get exaggerated in the mind once the seed has been sewn.

Senna was undoubtedly too aggressive or reckless at times but his reputation for it has greatly exceeded reality in my opinion.

mikeyg123 wrote:

Jezza13 wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

Jezza13 wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:Raw stats show Senna Crashed/Spun etc out of 13.1% of races he started (21/161). For Prost it's 11.1% (20/199).

Hardly the huge chasm you would expect if Senna took far greater risks?

It'd be interesting to know what percentage of those crashes / spins involved contact with a 2nd car.

At a guess I reckon the gap would widen significantly in the favour of Prost in that instance.

10 for Senna and 9 for Prost.

Wow mickey. Only 10 for Senna in his entire career & only 1 more than Prost? I would've sworn it was more than that.

Just off the top of my head I can say Rosberg Australia 85, Mansell Belgium 86, Prost Suzuka 89 & 90, Schumacher France 92.

Thats 1/2 of them.

Amazing.

In fairness Prost had the majority of his in his early career whilst Senna's were fairly spread out but it's interesting how you remember all of Senna's but not Prost's. It shows how these things get exaggerated in the mind once the seed has been sewn.

Senna was undoubtedly too aggressive or reckless at times but his reputation for it has greatly exceeded reality in my opinion.

Yeah that's pretty much the point I was making earlier. Senna's aggressive reputation has now seemingly eclipsed almost anything else he did and I don't remember that as being anywhere near what he was most famous for at the time.

Fiki wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

Fiki wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:Raw stats show Senna Crashed/Spun etc out of 13.1% of races he started (21/161). For Prost it's 11.1% (20/199).

Hardly the huge chasm you would expect if Senna took far greater risks?

Not every hit results in a crash, and crashing out isn't necessarily the consequence of contact with another competitor. Spinning out also is not necessarily related to contact with others. I think the raw data isn't giving us a clear picture. I don't know where Jackie Stewart got his numbers, but his statement wasn't contested I believe. Except obviously by Senna himself. It is perhaps helpful to say that this interview was in 1992. But I can't help but wonder whether it helped Senna to reflect on how he went racing.

If he was taking far greater risks would you not expect that to result in more race ending incidents when you get a very large bank of data?

Yes and no. Once your reputation as a merciless/ruthless overtaker is established, drivers will tend to finish their race rather than risk you ending their race. That will have an effect on your statistics.

I'm not sure how aware of F1 Senna was during the years immediately prior his first season, but Prost had already seen fellow drivers have race-ending accidents and even die. 1982 and Ferrari is a good example of why a driver like Prost might wish to be careful around other cars, rather than risk life and limb. Literally.

pokerman wrote:

Fiki wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:Raw stats show Senna Crashed/Spun etc out of 13.1% of races he started (21/161). For Prost it's 11.1% (20/199).

Hardly the huge chasm you would expect if Senna took far greater risks?

Not every hit results in a crash, and crashing out isn't necessarily the consequence of contact with another competitor. Spinning out also is not necessarily related to contact with others. I think the raw data isn't giving us a clear picture. I don't know where Jackie Stewart got his numbers, but his statement wasn't contested I believe. Except obviously by Senna himself. It is perhaps helpful to say that this interview was in 1992. But I can't help but wonder whether it helped Senna to reflect on how he went racing.

How do you know that what Stewart said wasn't contested when we don't have the access for opinion that we do now?

I look at Stewart's barbed comments today regarding Hamilton and see him as much a hater as anything else, the stats say it all and it's amusing the caveats some would look to make.

I'm not aware of Stewart's coments regarding Hamilton these days; the F1 coverage the British fans and I enjoyed then is no longer available to me since the BBC lost the contracts. So I can't comment on them, even if I were to read them. Having said that, I'm no fan of Hamilton's and might not take them the same way an unconditional follower might.

If you know of people who contested Stewart's views on Senna's many 'brushes' with other drivers, please share their comments.

One comment from Stewart was that Hamilton was like a precious little ballerina, that goes beyond having an opinion about someone to throwing personal insults and is just one of many negative things said about Hamilton, it shows more of a personal dislike.

In respect to Senna at the time Stewart was greatly respected and maybe there wouldn't have been many that questioned what Stewart said but then again unlike today opinions were not widely shared, in Senna's own defense he pointed out that he had no more crashes then any other driver which is borne out by the stats produced in this thread.

Circling back to Hamilton and all the criticism he gets from Stewart with one or two personal insults thrown in and looking back to how he attacked Senna and given how inaccurate he was about the amount of incidents that Senna was involved in I would question also perhaps a certain dislike of Senna rather than qualified opinion?

pokerman wrote:

Fiki wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

Fiki wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:Raw stats show Senna Crashed/Spun etc out of 13.1% of races he started (21/161). For Prost it's 11.1% (20/199).

Hardly the huge chasm you would expect if Senna took far greater risks?

Not every hit results in a crash, and crashing out isn't necessarily the consequence of contact with another competitor. Spinning out also is not necessarily related to contact with others. I think the raw data isn't giving us a clear picture. I don't know where Jackie Stewart got his numbers, but his statement wasn't contested I believe. Except obviously by Senna himself. It is perhaps helpful to say that this interview was in 1992. But I can't help but wonder whether it helped Senna to reflect on how he went racing.

If he was taking far greater risks would you not expect that to result in more race ending incidents when you get a very large bank of data?

Yes and no. Once your reputation as a merciless/ruthless overtaker is established, drivers will tend to finish their race rather than risk you ending their race. That will have an effect on your statistics.

I'm not sure how aware of F1 Senna was during the years immediately prior his first season, but Prost had already seen fellow drivers have race-ending accidents and even die. 1982 and Ferrari is a good example of why a driver like Prost might wish to be careful around other cars, rather than risk life and limb. Literally.

pokerman wrote:

Fiki wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:Raw stats show Senna Crashed/Spun etc out of 13.1% of races he started (21/161). For Prost it's 11.1% (20/199).

Hardly the huge chasm you would expect if Senna took far greater risks?

Not every hit results in a crash, and crashing out isn't necessarily the consequence of contact with another competitor. Spinning out also is not necessarily related to contact with others. I think the raw data isn't giving us a clear picture. I don't know where Jackie Stewart got his numbers, but his statement wasn't contested I believe. Except obviously by Senna himself. It is perhaps helpful to say that this interview was in 1992. But I can't help but wonder whether it helped Senna to reflect on how he went racing.

How do you know that what Stewart said wasn't contested when we don't have the access for opinion that we do now?

I look at Stewart's barbed comments today regarding Hamilton and see him as much a hater as anything else, the stats say it all and it's amusing the caveats some would look to make.

I'm not aware of Stewart's coments regarding Hamilton these days; the F1 coverage the British fans and I enjoyed then is no longer available to me since the BBC lost the contracts. So I can't comment on them, even if I were to read them. Having said that, I'm no fan of Hamilton's and might not take them the same way an unconditional follower might.

If you know of people who contested Stewart's views on Senna's many 'brushes' with other drivers, please share their comments.

One comment from Stewart was that Hamilton was like a precious little ballerina, that goes beyond having an opinion about someone to throwing personal insults and is just one of many negative things said about Hamilton, it shows more of a personal dislike.

In respect to Senna at the time Stewart was greatly respected and maybe there wouldn't have been many that questioned what Stewart said but then again unlike today opinions were not widely shared, in Senna's own defense he pointed out that he had no more crashes then any other driver which is borne out by the stats produced in this thread.

Circling back to Hamilton and all the criticism he gets from Stewart with one or two personal insults thrown in and looking back to how he attacked Senna and given how inaccurate he was about the amount of incidents that Senna was involved in I would question also perhaps a certain dislike of Senna rather than qualified opinion?

I think the comment was "little ballerina," (i.e. not precious) and you have to take the context which was Hamilton disobeying team orders. Stewart was opposed to the idea of a driver dictating to the team and I don't think his comments at the time should be taken as evidence of personal dislike.

Zoue wrote: I think the comment was "little ballerina," (i.e. not precious) and you have to take the context which was Hamilton disobeying team orders. Stewart was opposed to the idea of a driver dictating to the team and I don't think his comments at the time should be taken as evidence of personal dislike.

Little ballerina is an insult to a grown man, also I wouldn't be surprised given the interview that Stewart gave in the wake of Hamilton's 5th title that UK broadcasters might give Stewart a wide berth in respect to him giving his opinion about Hamilton in future, it can be quite cringe worthy.

Zoue wrote: I think the comment was "little ballerina," (i.e. not precious) and you have to take the context which was Hamilton disobeying team orders. Stewart was opposed to the idea of a driver dictating to the team and I don't think his comments at the time should be taken as evidence of personal dislike.

In itself it could be seen like that but Stewart has made a lot of little remarks about Hamilton that suggests he has a bee in his bonnet about him.

Not that I really think it matters.

pokerman wrote:

Fiki wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

Fiki wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:Raw stats show Senna Crashed/Spun etc out of 13.1% of races he started (21/161). For Prost it's 11.1% (20/199).

Hardly the huge chasm you would expect if Senna took far greater risks?

Not every hit results in a crash, and crashing out isn't necessarily the consequence of contact with another competitor. Spinning out also is not necessarily related to contact with others. I think the raw data isn't giving us a clear picture. I don't know where Jackie Stewart got his numbers, but his statement wasn't contested I believe. Except obviously by Senna himself. It is perhaps helpful to say that this interview was in 1992. But I can't help but wonder whether it helped Senna to reflect on how he went racing.

If he was taking far greater risks would you not expect that to result in more race ending incidents when you get a very large bank of data?

Yes and no. Once your reputation as a merciless/ruthless overtaker is established, drivers will tend to finish their race rather than risk you ending their race. That will have an effect on your statistics.

I'm not sure how aware of F1 Senna was during the years immediately prior his first season, but Prost had already seen fellow drivers have race-ending accidents and even die. 1982 and Ferrari is a good example of why a driver like Prost might wish to be careful around other cars, rather than risk life and limb. Literally.

pokerman wrote:

Fiki wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:Raw stats show Senna Crashed/Spun etc out of 13.1% of races he started (21/161). For Prost it's 11.1% (20/199).

Hardly the huge chasm you would expect if Senna took far greater risks?

Not every hit results in a crash, and crashing out isn't necessarily the consequence of contact with another competitor. Spinning out also is not necessarily related to contact with others. I think the raw data isn't giving us a clear picture. I don't know where Jackie Stewart got his numbers, but his statement wasn't contested I believe. Except obviously by Senna himself. It is perhaps helpful to say that this interview was in 1992. But I can't help but wonder whether it helped Senna to reflect on how he went racing.

How do you know that what Stewart said wasn't contested when we don't have the access for opinion that we do now?

I look at Stewart's barbed comments today regarding Hamilton and see him as much a hater as anything else, the stats say it all and it's amusing the caveats some would look to make.

I'm not aware of Stewart's coments regarding Hamilton these days; the F1 coverage the British fans and I enjoyed then is no longer available to me since the BBC lost the contracts. So I can't comment on them, even if I were to read them. Having said that, I'm no fan of Hamilton's and might not take them the same way an unconditional follower might.

If you know of people who contested Stewart's views on Senna's many 'brushes' with other drivers, please share their comments.

One comment from Stewart was that Hamilton was like a precious little ballerina, that goes beyond having an opinion about someone to throwing personal insults and is just one of many negative things said about Hamilton, it shows more of a personal dislike.

In respect to Senna at the time Stewart was greatly respected and maybe there wouldn't have been many that questioned what Stewart said but then again unlike today opinions were not widely shared, in Senna's own defense he pointed out that he had no more crashes then any other driver which is borne out by the stats produced in this thread.

Circling back to Hamilton and all the criticism he gets from Stewart with one or two personal insults thrown in and looking back to how he attacked Senna and given how inaccurate he was about the amount of incidents that Senna was involved in I would question also perhaps a certain dislike of Senna rather than qualified opinion?

It was also at a time when someone like me couldn't easily prove or disprove such statements with a tap of a few keys.

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote: I think the comment was "little ballerina," (i.e. not precious) and you have to take the context which was Hamilton disobeying team orders. Stewart was opposed to the idea of a driver dictating to the team and I don't think his comments at the time should be taken as evidence of personal dislike.

Little ballerina is an insult to a grown man, also I wouldn't be surprised given the interview that Stewart gave in the wake of Hamilton's 5th title that UK broadcasters might give Stewart a wide berth in respect to him giving his opinion about Hamilton in future, it can be quite cringe worthy.

Well of course it's an insult. Again, look at the context of what Stewart was trying to say and you'll see why he wasn't trying to be complimentary. But it's hardly a below the belt comment and I think you're perhaps taking it a wee bit personally.

Would be odd if Stewart was avoided simply because he's not been positive about Hamilton. Aside from the fact that broadcasters generally love a bit of controversy why would they only want sycophantic interviewees?

mikeyg123 wrote: It was also at a time when someone like me couldn't easily prove or disprove such statements with a tap of a few keys.

Indeed

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote: I think the comment was "little ballerina," (i.e. not precious) and you have to take the context which was Hamilton disobeying team orders. Stewart was opposed to the idea of a driver dictating to the team and I don't think his comments at the time should be taken as evidence of personal dislike.

Little ballerina is an insult to a grown man, also I wouldn't be surprised given the interview that Stewart gave in the wake of Hamilton's 5th title that UK broadcasters might give Stewart a wide berth in respect to him giving his opinion about Hamilton in future, it can be quite cringe worthy.

Well of course it's an insult. Again, look at the context of what Stewart was trying to say and you'll see why he wasn't trying to be complimentary. But it's hardly a below the belt comment and I think you're perhaps taking it a wee bit personally.

Would be odd if Stewart was avoided simply because he's not been positive about Hamilton. Aside from the fact that broadcasters generally love a bit of controversy why would they only want sycophantic interviewees?

Not as personally as some.

http://www.dailycarblog.com/2016/12/aft ... -a-racist/

He even went further

Stewart believes Hamilton should have listened, that no driver is above the team and has called on Mercedes to punish their star driver.

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote: I think the comment was "little ballerina," (i.e. not precious) and you have to take the context which was Hamilton disobeying team orders. Stewart was opposed to the idea of a driver dictating to the team and I don't think his comments at the time should be taken as evidence of personal dislike.

Little ballerina is an insult to a grown man, also I wouldn't be surprised given the interview that Stewart gave in the wake of Hamilton's 5th title that UK broadcasters might give Stewart a wide berth in respect to him giving his opinion about Hamilton in future, it can be quite cringe worthy.

Well of course it's an insult. Again, look at the context of what Stewart was trying to say and you'll see why he wasn't trying to be complimentary. But it's hardly a below the belt comment and I think you're perhaps taking it a wee bit personally.

Would be odd if Stewart was avoided simply because he's not been positive about Hamilton. Aside from the fact that broadcasters generally love a bit of controversy why would they only want sycophantic interviewees?

Not as personally as some.

http://www.dailycarblog.com/2016/12/aft ... -a-racist/

Unintentionally funny article. It takes a pretty breathtaking leap to accuse Stewart of racism simply because he doesn't appear to like Hamilton. There's no build up and it comes out of nowhere. Someone's suffering with the weight of an almighty great potato on their shoulder there I'm afraid. And he doesn't appear to answer the obvious question why Stewart the racist would invite Hamilton to meet him in his own home, but I'm sure that's just an inconvenient detail.

Of course it's possible that Stewart doesn't like Hamilton. But that doesn't mean that any criticism he makes of him is wrong. And IMO anybody who lies awake at night after being called a little ballerina should probably have their senstitivity meter checked. It's just a little barb.

pokerman wrote:He even went further

Stewart believes Hamilton should have listened, that no driver is above the team and has called on Mercedes to punish their star driver.

I'm sorry, are you being tongue in cheek here? Stewart was only voicing what a number of people on this forum also said after Abu Dhabi. Is it really that controversial?

mikeyg123 wrote:

Jezza13 wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

Jezza13 wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:Raw stats show Senna Crashed/Spun etc out of 13.1% of races he started (21/161). For Prost it's 11.1% (20/199).

Hardly the huge chasm you would expect if Senna took far greater risks?

It'd be interesting to know what percentage of those crashes / spins involved contact with a 2nd car.

At a guess I reckon the gap would widen significantly in the favour of Prost in that instance.

10 for Senna and 9 for Prost.

Wow mickey. Only 10 for Senna in his entire career & only 1 more than Prost? I would've sworn it was more than that.

Just off the top of my head I can say Rosberg Australia 85, Mansell Belgium 86, Prost Suzuka 89 & 90, Schumacher France 92.

Thats 1/2 of them.

Amazing.

In fairness Prost had the majority of his in his early career whilst Senna's were fairly spread out but it's interesting how you remember all of Senna's but not Prost's. It shows how these things get exaggerated in the mind once the seed has been sewn.

Senna was undoubtedly too aggressive or reckless at times but his reputation for it has greatly exceeded reality in my opinion.

I did only start watching in late 85 so Prost might’ve already had most of his done & dusted by that time but going off your stats I have to agree that maybe Senna’s reputation for being as aggressive as most think is a maybe a tad unwarranted. Not saying he wasn’t over agressive at times but maybe not to the extent as most believe.

F1 MERCENARY wrote:

rodH wrote:Vettal and Prost in front of Senna? again, the efforts are good, but some things can't be calculated.

I will ALWAYS put Prost ahead of Senna because with Prost, guys can say all the nonsensical things they want, but NO ONE EEEEEEVER didn't commit to a corner if they were contesting it against Prost. With Senna, guys would make sure to not occupy the area they thought he wanted out of fear he'd wreck them. And that not heresy, but fact as MANY drivers who competed against both have said so regarding Senna.

He definitely had more natural talent than most other drivers, but for that very reason he should have figured out the way around people rather than intimidate his way past. Vettel, like Senna, has an innate natural ability, but mentally he's just not where he needs to be. He is still brilliant in Qualy, but come the races, he's made mistakes here and there due to a lapse in concentration. Once he sorts that out, he's going to be consistently fighting for wins again.

Interesting. Vettel is not an amazing qualifier. I've always been more impressed with his race pace to be honest, as Daniel Ricciardo, an old Kimi Raikonnen could beat him in qualifying over a season and now Leclerc looks like he may be doing it too. I do agree that he is not mentally strong and that he tends to make silly errors quite often while under the pressure, which is a very negative trait for a driver of that caliber, but his stock is at an all time low and we tend to forget how good he was during the Redbull years.

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote: I think the comment was "little ballerina," (i.e. not precious) and you have to take the context which was Hamilton disobeying team orders. Stewart was opposed to the idea of a driver dictating to the team and I don't think his comments at the time should be taken as evidence of personal dislike.

Little ballerina is an insult to a grown man, also I wouldn't be surprised given the interview that Stewart gave in the wake of Hamilton's 5th title that UK broadcasters might give Stewart a wide berth in respect to him giving his opinion about Hamilton in future, it can be quite cringe worthy.

Well of course it's an insult. Again, look at the context of what Stewart was trying to say and you'll see why he wasn't trying to be complimentary. But it's hardly a below the belt comment and I think you're perhaps taking it a wee bit personally.

Would be odd if Stewart was avoided simply because he's not been positive about Hamilton. Aside from the fact that broadcasters generally love a bit of controversy why would they only want sycophantic interviewees?

Not as personally as some.

http://www.dailycarblog.com/2016/12/aft ... -a-racist/

Unintentionally funny article. It takes a pretty breathtaking leap to accuse Stewart of racism simply because he doesn't appear to like Hamilton. There's no build up and it comes out of nowhere. Someone's suffering with the weight of an almighty great potato on their shoulder there I'm afraid. And he doesn't appear to answer the obvious question why Stewart the racist would invite Hamilton to meet him in his own home, but I'm sure that's just an inconvenient detail.

Of course it's possible that Stewart doesn't like Hamilton. But that doesn't mean that any criticism he makes of him is wrong. And IMO anybody who lies awake at night after being called a little ballerina should probably have their senstitivity meter checked. It's just a little barb.

Just pointing out that the raft of criticism from Stewart has been noticed by more than just me, as for the racism part I see that as being more of trying to find an explanation for it, it might be as simple as Stewart simply doesn't like Hamilton like he appeared to not like Senna?

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:He even went further

Stewart believes Hamilton should have listened, that no driver is above the team and has called on Mercedes to punish their star driver.

I'm sorry, are you being tongue in cheek here? Stewart was only voicing what a number of people on this forum also said after Abu Dhabi. Is it really that controversial?

That wasn't the point of showing the article, more to show that a few people have noticed the criticisms that emanate from Stewart, also you didn't comment on the specific quote I posted from the article, Stewart calling on Mercedes to penalise Hamilton, were people also calling for that?

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:Little ballerina is an insult to a grown man, also I wouldn't be surprised given the interview that Stewart gave in the wake of Hamilton's 5th title that UK broadcasters might give Stewart a wide berth in respect to him giving his opinion about Hamilton in future, it can be quite cringe worthy.

Well of course it's an insult. Again, look at the context of what Stewart was trying to say and you'll see why he wasn't trying to be complimentary. But it's hardly a below the belt comment and I think you're perhaps taking it a wee bit personally.

Would be odd if Stewart was avoided simply because he's not been positive about Hamilton. Aside from the fact that broadcasters generally love a bit of controversy why would they only want sycophantic interviewees?

Not as personally as some.

http://www.dailycarblog.com/2016/12/aft ... -a-racist/

Unintentionally funny article. It takes a pretty breathtaking leap to accuse Stewart of racism simply because he doesn't appear to like Hamilton. There's no build up and it comes out of nowhere. Someone's suffering with the weight of an almighty great potato on their shoulder there I'm afraid. And he doesn't appear to answer the obvious question why Stewart the racist would invite Hamilton to meet him in his own home, but I'm sure that's just an inconvenient detail.

Of course it's possible that Stewart doesn't like Hamilton. But that doesn't mean that any criticism he makes of him is wrong. And IMO anybody who lies awake at night after being called a little ballerina should probably have their senstitivity meter checked. It's just a little barb.

Just pointing out that the raft of criticism from Stewart has been noticed by more than just me, as for the racism part I see that as being more of trying to find an explanation for it, it might be as simple as Stewart simply doesn't like Hamilton like he appeared to not like Senna?

I see it as more an attack on Stewart to try to discredit his opinion.

It doesn't even matter whether Stewart likes Hamilton or not. Makes no difference to the point he was making at the time

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:He even went further

Stewart believes Hamilton should have listened, that no driver is above the team and has called on Mercedes to punish their star driver.

I'm sorry, are you being tongue in cheek here? Stewart was only voicing what a number of people on this forum also said after Abu Dhabi. Is it really that controversial?

That wasn't the point of showing the article, more to show that a few people have noticed the criticisms that emanate from Stewart, also you didn't comment on the specific quote I posted from the article, Stewart calling on Mercedes to penalise Hamilton, were people also calling for that?

I thought I did cover the specific quote tbh. I still don't see the major controversy here.

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote: Well of course it's an insult. Again, look at the context of what Stewart was trying to say and you'll see why he wasn't trying to be complimentary. But it's hardly a below the belt comment and I think you're perhaps taking it a wee bit personally.

Would be odd if Stewart was avoided simply because he's not been positive about Hamilton. Aside from the fact that broadcasters generally love a bit of controversy why would they only want sycophantic interviewees?

Not as personally as some.

http://www.dailycarblog.com/2016/12/aft ... -a-racist/

Unintentionally funny article. It takes a pretty breathtaking leap to accuse Stewart of racism simply because he doesn't appear to like Hamilton. There's no build up and it comes out of nowhere. Someone's suffering with the weight of an almighty great potato on their shoulder there I'm afraid. And he doesn't appear to answer the obvious question why Stewart the racist would invite Hamilton to meet him in his own home, but I'm sure that's just an inconvenient detail.

Of course it's possible that Stewart doesn't like Hamilton. But that doesn't mean that any criticism he makes of him is wrong. And IMO anybody who lies awake at night after being called a little ballerina should probably have their senstitivity meter checked. It's just a little barb.

Just pointing out that the raft of criticism from Stewart has been noticed by more than just me, as for the racism part I see that as being more of trying to find an explanation for it, it might be as simple as Stewart simply doesn't like Hamilton like he appeared to not like Senna?

I see it as more an attack on Stewart to try to discredit his opinion.

It doesn't even matter whether Stewart likes Hamilton or not. Makes no difference to the point he was making at the time

Well I don't believe I'm trying to disguise that, at the time of the Senna interview you take Stewart as a credible detractor, but with Hamilton a steady pattern emerges and I ask the question is he credible or just someone with a prejudiced opinion?

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:He even went further

Stewart believes Hamilton should have listened, that no driver is above the team and has called on Mercedes to punish their star driver.

I'm sorry, are you being tongue in cheek here? Stewart was only voicing what a number of people on this forum also said after Abu Dhabi. Is it really that controversial?

That wasn't the point of showing the article, more to show that a few people have noticed the criticisms that emanate from Stewart, also you didn't comment on the specific quote I posted from the article, Stewart calling on Mercedes to penalise Hamilton, were people also calling for that?

I thought I did cover the specific quote tbh. I still don't see the major controversy here.

What a number of people thought that Mercedes should have penalised Hamilton?

pokerman wrote:
What a number of people thought that Mercedes should have penalised Hamilton?

I think a fair few people did. Certainly not my opinion but I remember it being said he should be dragged over the coals by Mercedes.

mikeyg123 wrote:

pokerman wrote:
What a number of people thought that Mercedes should have penalised Hamilton?

I think a fair few people did. Certainly not my opinion but I remember it being said he should be dragged over the coals by Mercedes.

I think anyone who is a team-first fan thought what he did was inappropriate. He very deliberately attempted to cost the team a 1-2 for his own personal gain. You don't need to be anti-Hamilton to think that's selfish and putting yourself above the team. Mercedes got a world champion either way.

I never realistically thought he would have been punished, but I certainly didn't like what he did. The team always has to come first: Hamilton would be nowhere without his team, but without him they'd still be world champions. The same is true of any driver with success.

EDIT: And just to be clear, I feel similarly about other drivers who have blatantly put themselves above their team to its detriment, even including my personal favorite driver Alonso. One of the reasons I'm starting to like Leclerc so much is that he hasn't done that, despite having some very good reasons to do so in the face of the team favoring the arguably weaker teammate.

Exediron wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

pokerman wrote:
What a number of people thought that Mercedes should have penalised Hamilton?

I think a fair few people did. Certainly not my opinion but I remember it being said he should be dragged over the coals by Mercedes.

I think anyone who is a team-first fan thought what he did was inappropriate. He very deliberately attempted to cost the team a 1-2 for his own personal gain. You don't need to be anti-Hamilton to think that's selfish and putting yourself above the team. Mercedes got a world champion either way.

I never realistically thought he would have been punished, but I certainly didn't like what he did. The team always has to come first: Hamilton would be nowhere without his team, but without him they'd still be world champions. The same is true of any driver with success.

EDIT: And just to be clear, I feel similarly about other drivers who have blatantly put themselves above their team to its detriment, even including my personal favorite driver Alonso. One of the reasons I'm starting to like Leclerc so much is that he hasn't done that, despite having some very good reasons to do so in the face of the team favoring the arguably weaker teammate.

Personally I felt the team was asking too much. A driver is never going to rate the team scoring 2nd place (that makes no difference to them in the WCC) more important than winning a WDC for themselves.

I'm sure in the cold light of day Merc could see that.

pokerman wrote: What a number of people thought that Mercedes should have penalised Hamilton?

Yes. You are a driver oriented fan, poker,and don't really give a damn about anything other than the driver, however, those who see F1 as a team sport and recognize the TEAM's role in a driver's success, may well feel that Lewis should have been penalized. It is not an unreasonable thought.

Fiki wrote:

F1 MERCENARY wrote:I will ALWAYS put Prost ahead of Senna because with Prost, guys can say all the nonsensical things they want, but NO ONE EEEEEEVER didn't commit to a corner if they were contesting it against Prost.

I do too, but I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean in your explanation.

Most top drivers in Senna's time have stated publicly that in order to ensure their race wouldn't end in lap 1, they'd be sure to leave Senna his ordained space, and that to me is not only bullshit, but speaks to the fact that Senna often benefitted from his brash and brazen behavior on track. If you go and watch a lot of his races you will see this happen quite a bit more than you remember because of how much praise he always received from commentators, which painted it in a different light. Knowing what we know today, and having a better understanding of proper etiquette while racing hard and fair, some things he did will stand out. Like I said, the man was brilliantly talented, but his antics, arrogance and DGAF you'd better not be in front of me attitude hurt his overall all-time rating in my book for all time.

When it came to Prost however, no one was afraid to occupy space on the prime line because they understood that Prost would not crash into them and wold give them their space while contesting hard and eventually muscling his way past. THAT is an astronomical difference to me. Verstappen today has a bit of the Senna mentality, though he seems to have curbed it gradually over the past 2 seasons.

Zoue wrote:Bottom line is that as good as Prost was he was fairly comprehensively beaten on track by Senna when they were team mates. I know some try to make out that Prost somehow avoided much mechanical mishap by being gentler on his car but that's more myth than anything actually proven. But Prost rarely had an answer to Senna's speed and without trying to diminish Prost's talent - he was definitely one of the all-time greats for me - it's hard to put him higher than someone he couldn't match and only managed to beat through retirements.

In my estimation Senna is the fastest driver I have ever seen in action myself. But best isn't synonymous with speed only, though I think that the team that Senna's speed did make the team shift towards him rather than Prost. According to Lauda, the same thing happened to him when Prost proved to be the quicker man. The difference with Senna, is that both Lauda and Prost had very similar ways about going racing; they both looked to the car as the tool that had to deliver the result in the first place. Take the team focus off the driver whose method this is, and he is in trouble. Team focus is the prime reason why Prost left McLaren for Ferrari, and it was Nigel Mansell who suffered from the loss of team focus.

I honestly don't believe there really is a bottom line when deciding who is 'best'. It certainly doesn't do to only put outright speed there.[/quote]

Part of that was due to the Honda relationship Senna enjoyed which was a real factual issue and sore spot for Prost, and considering Senna was given that advantage, saying he comprehensively beat Prost doesn't hold water. In the end, Prost won more races and more championships and he did so fair and square, but some people suggest that he only managed to do so because of superior equipment, which is a cop out because even in his brief Ferrari stint, Prost was always their faster driver, and in a solid car, rather than a top car. Then he drove for Williams and dominated and again it's said that was only the case due to the car, but he was once again the fastest driver on the team. And as I've keenly pointed out, Senna's car featured all the same systems as the Williams (including active suspension), but the Williams was a tad better and I found it absurd to hear Senna insinuate that Prost was only beating him due to the features on his car in a way that suggested he didn't have ANY of those features on his. Just whining like a little kid who wasn't happy with things not going his way. Had the situation been reversed, he'd have said tough luck.

As fast as Senna was, Michael was consistently faster on many more tracks throughout his career.
And not only was he quicker, but he was better overall. He and Senna had similar driving styles, but Michael took it to another level, beginning in the years where he secluded himself at the track in order to teach himself how to be a better and more complete driver by driving thousands upon thousands of laps.

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:Not as personally as some.

http://www.dailycarblog.com/2016/12/aft ... -a-racist/

Unintentionally funny article. It takes a pretty breathtaking leap to accuse Stewart of racism simply because he doesn't appear to like Hamilton. There's no build up and it comes out of nowhere. Someone's suffering with the weight of an almighty great potato on their shoulder there I'm afraid. And he doesn't appear to answer the obvious question why Stewart the racist would invite Hamilton to meet him in his own home, but I'm sure that's just an inconvenient detail.

Of course it's possible that Stewart doesn't like Hamilton. But that doesn't mean that any criticism he makes of him is wrong. And IMO anybody who lies awake at night after being called a little ballerina should probably have their senstitivity meter checked. It's just a little barb.

Just pointing out that the raft of criticism from Stewart has been noticed by more than just me, as for the racism part I see that as being more of trying to find an explanation for it, it might be as simple as Stewart simply doesn't like Hamilton like he appeared to not like Senna?

I see it as more an attack on Stewart to try to discredit his opinion.

It doesn't even matter whether Stewart likes Hamilton or not. Makes no difference to the point he was making at the time

Well I don't believe I'm trying to disguise that, at the time of the Senna interview you take Stewart as a credible detractor, but with Hamilton a steady pattern emerges and I ask the question is he credible or just someone with a prejudiced opinion?

Again, you need to take each argument on its own merits without always looking for hidden meaning. Even if he didn't like Hamilton at the time of writing this, does that invalidate the point he was making?

Bottom line is that he feels that the team comes above the driver. Whether you agree with him or not, it's a valid, albeit debatable, point of view. On this occasion Hamilton went against the team so that gave Stewart legitimate ammunition to criticise. You don't have to agree with him but I also don't see any reason to take it so personally either

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:I'm sorry, are you being tongue in cheek here? Stewart was only voicing what a number of people on this forum also said after Abu Dhabi. Is it really that controversial?

That wasn't the point of showing the article, more to show that a few people have noticed the criticisms that emanate from Stewart, also you didn't comment on the specific quote I posted from the article, Stewart calling on Mercedes to penalise Hamilton, were people also calling for that?

I thought I did cover the specific quote tbh. I still don't see the major controversy here.

What a number of people thought that Mercedes should have penalised Hamilton?

yeah as mentioned by others already there were plenty of people with varied opinions at the time. Stewart was by no means alone

F1 MERCENARY wrote: Part of that was due to the Honda relationship Senna enjoyed which was a real factual issue and sore spot for Prost, and considering Senna was given that advantage, saying he comprehensively beat Prost doesn't hold water. In the end, Prost won more races and more championships and he did so fair and square, but some people suggest that he only managed to do so because of superior equipment, which is a cop out because even in his brief Ferrari stint, Prost was always their faster driver, and in a solid car, rather than a top car. Then he drove for Williams and dominated and again it's said that was only the case due to the car, but he was once again the fastest driver on the team. And as I've keenly pointed out, Senna's car featured all the same systems as the Williams (including active suspension), but the Williams was a tad better and I found it absurd to hear Senna insinuate that Prost was only beating him due to the features on his car in a way that suggested he didn't have ANY of those features on his. Just whining like a little kid who wasn't happy with things not going his way. Had the situation been reversed, he'd have said tough luck.

As fast as Senna was, Michael was consistently faster on many more tracks throughout his career.
And not only was he quicker, but he was better overall. He and Senna had similar driving styles, but Michael took it to another level, beginning in the years where he secluded himself at the track in order to teach himself how to be a better and more complete driver by driving thousands upon thousands of laps.

Just because a driver makes a claim doesn't make it true. I thought it was fairly well known that it got to the stage where McLaren let the drivers basically flip a coin before each race in order to see who would get which engine, in order to dispel any notions of favouritism. There was never any evidence to substantiate Prost's claims and if we start going down the bad equipment route we will never be able to compare drivers.

That's not to say Prost wasn't quick himself, but I think if you're trying to claim that he was actually quicker than Senna then I'm afraid the evidence doesn't support that.

Schumacher is trickier to compare as they never had the same equipment. Although I don't agree personally I think there's a legitimate claim to say he might have been better than Senna. He was undoubtedly one of the best I've ever seen and all I can say for sure is he dominated his era in the same way Senna dominated his.

F1 MERCENARY wrote:

Fiki wrote:

F1 MERCENARY wrote:I will ALWAYS put Prost ahead of Senna because with Prost, guys can say all the nonsensical things they want, but NO ONE EEEEEEVER didn't commit to a corner if they were contesting it against Prost.

I do too, but I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean in your explanation.

Most top drivers in Senna's time have stated publicly that in order to ensure their race wouldn't end in lap 1, they'd be sure to leave Senna his ordained space, and that to me is not only bullshit, but speaks to the fact that Senna often benefitted from his brash and brazen behavior on track. If you go and watch a lot of his races you will see this happen quite a bit more than you remember because of how much praise he always received from commentators, which painted it in a different light. Knowing what we know today, and having a better understanding of proper etiquette while racing hard and fair, some things he did will stand out. Like I said, the man was brilliantly talented, but his antics, arrogance and DGAF you'd better not be in front of me attitude hurt his overall all-time rating in my book for all time.

When it came to Prost however, no one was afraid to occupy space on the prime line because they understood that Prost would not crash into them and wold give them their space while contesting hard and eventually muscling his way past. THAT is an astronomical difference to me. Verstappen today has a bit of the Senna mentality, though he seems to have curbed it gradually over the past 2 seasons.

Zoue wrote:Bottom line is that as good as Prost was he was fairly comprehensively beaten on track by Senna when they were team mates. I know some try to make out that Prost somehow avoided much mechanical mishap by being gentler on his car but that's more myth than anything actually proven. But Prost rarely had an answer to Senna's speed and without trying to diminish Prost's talent - he was definitely one of the all-time greats for me - it's hard to put him higher than someone he couldn't match and only managed to beat through retirements.

In my estimation Senna is the fastest driver I have ever seen in action myself. But best isn't synonymous with speed only, though I think that the team that Senna's speed did make the team shift towards him rather than Prost. According to Lauda, the same thing happened to him when Prost proved to be the quicker man. The difference with Senna, is that both Lauda and Prost had very similar ways about going racing; they both looked to the car as the tool that had to deliver the result in the first place. Take the team focus off the driver whose method this is, and he is in trouble. Team focus is the prime reason why Prost left McLaren for Ferrari, and it was Nigel Mansell who suffered from the loss of team focus.

I honestly don't believe there really is a bottom line when deciding who is 'best'. It certainly doesn't do to only put outright speed there.

Part of that was due to the Honda relationship Senna enjoyed which was a real factual issue and sore spot for Prost, and considering Senna was given that advantage, saying he comprehensively beat Prost doesn't hold water. In the end, Prost won more races and more championships and he did so fair and square, but some people suggest that he only managed to do so because of superior equipment, which is a cop out because even in his brief Ferrari stint, Prost was always their faster driver, and in a solid car, rather than a top car. Then he drove for Williams and dominated and again it's said that was only the case due to the car, but he was once again the fastest driver on the team. And as I've keenly pointed out, Senna's car featured all the same systems as the Williams (including active suspension), but the Williams was a tad better and I found it absurd to hear Senna insinuate that Prost was only beating him due to the features on his car in a way that suggested he didn't have ANY of those features on his. Just whining like a little kid who wasn't happy with things not going his way. Had the situation been reversed, he'd have said tough luck.

As fast as Senna was, Michael was consistently faster on many more tracks throughout his career.
And not only was he quicker, but he was better overall. He and Senna had similar driving styles, but Michael took it to another level, beginning in the years where he secluded himself at the track in order to teach himself how to be a better and more complete driver by driving thousands upon thousands of laps.[/quote]

Unsubstantiated rumours about Honda engines aside I think it's a bit easy to just say Prost won more races so there.

He also competed in more races. Their win rates are very similar.

mikeyg123 wrote:Unsubstantiated rumours about Honda engines aside I think it's a bit easy to just say Prost won more races so there.

He also competed in more races. Their win rates are very similar.

What I would find interesting, is to find out whether Senna's outlook on winning races versus championships changed over the brief period he was in a position to do both. I know Prost's view of things changed through having seen two or three titles lost by extremely small points differences. Losing 1984 by half a point visibly hurt him. It made him more of a points gatherer than he already was.
In an interview with Senna, or simply a discussion about him, that I heard Senna wanted to win everything, all of the time. I think this difference of approach is significant, and with Senna's declining years (or should I say safety conscious years?) missing from the total picture because of his death, a more balanced comparison is near impossible.

Last week the Senna documentary was broadcast again, but I simply didn't want to watch it anymore, it's simply not worth it. But I have a recording of a long interview with Prost in which he speaks of his suspicions about Honda preference for Senna. I will try to watch it again this week, because he claimed his suspicions were confirmed, and I would like to refresh my memory on how he found out for himself what had happened.