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