Hi ... I´m doing a survey about Senna that I never seen before ... when I finished it, I will let you know... This will put other racing drivers on the floor...
An Autosport magazine survey which polled 217 Formula One drivers had the Brazilian on top, ahead of seven-times champion Schumacher and five-times champion Juan Manuel Fangio.
@rcrg72 Just few things: PlanetF1 conduct a pool over 22 of the 24 actual drivers (except Mercedes' Team) and 12 select Ayrton Senna as the Best of all the times. Top Gear in July release a program in honor to the 50 years old of Senna and you see some racers selecting Senna as the number one....including Schumacher...
In those days the FIA rules were that the poleman could choose his starting position. Normaly one chooses for the inside of the first corner, but Senna didn't because of to much dust on that starting position. Balestre refused to let him start on the other position, so Aytron declared publicly before the race that Prost wouldn't make it to the first corner. How many drivers dare to say that? Ayrton was in his right. Balestre was a big a...! Only hungry for power and money. He was an ex-SS in WW2
Wow - is that right - Balestre was a Nazi? Its extremely disconcerting to hear that after recent revelations of Mosely's Nazi family and Bernie saying publicly recently "There's too much democracy in F1" and "Hitler got things done".
What the hell is up with the Nazi connections in F1?
But anyway - back to racing - yes Senna was 100% justified in punting Prost off - even regardless of Prost taking Senna out in 89 - the grid manipulation was totally unacceptable. Senna was saying "NO WAY IN HELL I'M GONNA COP THAT SHIT!" - it was a heroic move - I salute him for drawing a line in the sand and saying "YOU WILL NOT PUSH ME BACK".
MMM, I don't agre hee malla: crashing a car in the very 1st corner of a race is a demonstration of lack of self comfidence. At least He could have done the same Prost did the previous year, who led the 90% of the race and cashed against him since He had nothing to loose. Push hard, go for it, and this time Prost WASN'T going to close the door: if He had done it, He would loose the title at the same time.... What Ayton did HAS NO justifying reason at all (as what Alain did WASN'T as well).
OK my friend we must agree to disagree on that one - i think Senna was justified for 2 reasons:
1. Revenge for Japan 89
2. Balestre messing with the grid positions in Jap 90.
I dont think those 2 points can be forgotten when judging the 90 Crash- they are integral to why Senna did it- if those 2 points did not exist- I agree then it would have been the worst act in F1 history. But they did exist and cannot be separated form what happened.
Prost had no such excuses for what he did in Japan 89.
2. If Senna hadn't been disqualified n Japan 89 in Balestre's kangaroo court.
Senna may or still may not have won the 89 WC.
3. If Balestre hadn't messed with the grid in Japan 90 - then Senna may have got to the first corner first and won it clean.
But unfortunately these IF's didn't happen. I admire Senna for not accepting Balestre's unjust interference and manipulation. It was simply not acceptable..
@mallamoozoo So believing in his talent He believe that no one was faster than him on even terms. I mean who goes out with 3 minutes left in qualifying for just one run? his loosing added to his legend. It made him a better driver...look at 1991...perfect season. He was no longer going to leave it in the hands of other 0 mistakes....can any one in any F1 season do what Senna did in 1991
I partially agree digoclocks mate, but the previous year Prost also dare to say everybody: "I will try to win this race and the title tomorrow. I'll go for 1st place because I'm decided to win this race. I'll push hard tomorrow but not more than needed. In any case, I'm tired of opening the door or lift to avoid a crash with him. This time I won't open the door anymore, He'd better go for it easily, if We figth it's gonna be hard. Again: I won't lift or open the door anymore". TEXTUAL QUOTE 89.
@lucianoestivill we've talked about this..I need you to prove my theory...Remember you telling me about the set ups. And it was you that asked me hard question I had to answer to myself. IT person s we won't get into it but this....See if you are being beaten its one thing, another thing to stop the bleeding...another thing to bring it all back to even. Much more effort and much more ass kicking. For everything that wen't right for Prost including 2 extra second in the pits..he made it up
@lucianoestivill So he wasn't true to his word...he left the door open. For all the greatness that is Prost..when it matter Senna had that extra...Prost knew that in traffic Senna would get him....yes it was a smart move on his part....Senna by all means went for wins everytime out...Not to just score points.....Prost took his opportunity and did what he had to do.
@lucianoestivill In 1991 he may have used the qualifying engine that was very powerfull...But what he did in Spa in 1991 was awesome..to hold a faster car behind...not to mention Perfect starts everytime...for races after races.
Th greatest hypothetical in my mnd is Ayrton Senna and Gilles Villeneuve in the same team - Im not really interested in Schui V Senna - im totally convinced it isnt even close. But Senna V Villeneuve - FAAARK! That would've been indescribable.
To be honest they may have driven each other to death.
Senna Villeneuve and Clark are the 3 fastest of all time - and all KIA - absolute legends all of them.
i'm sure that all tree are having a lot of fun for the moment in paradise.
Why should one "Rest In Peace" when he leaves this planeth.
I saw them both in real life and hope to see them again. I was there when Gilles died but luckely i didn't saw the crash. I Had to race myself that day.
Wow - would've been fantastic to watch Gilles Villeneuve drive in real life. Well my friend you are a part of history if you were racing there that day - and yes - a good thing you didn't see the crash. I was a kid at the time and just starting to watch F1 - but I remember my Dad - a Vietnam Vet, being quite upset when he heard the news so i realised this guy must have been special.
I met Ayrton once- one of the highlights of my life. And when he died was one of the lowlights!
i was watching practice. Then i went to the chicane and the little hill. It's a nice spot to watch F1 in Zolder. You're very close to the cars. I just arrived there one minute after the crach. Me and mecanics prayed the rest off the day. Late at night we heard on tv that Gilles died. Nothing but tears in ours eyes. The reason he died is a whole different story.
After Ayrton died i lost interest in F1.
I raced with Ratzenberger who died the day before. I had beaten him once.
You must have been quite talented to even mix it with Ratzenberger. Any F1 driver is an extreme talent. Just to mix it with any of them at any stage of career means you must have been not too far yourself from F1 standard (relative to laymen).
Yes when F1 lost Senna, the fire went out. I continued watching but it was never the same again. For millions of us- the 80's was the golden era of F1. It can never again come close to that time.
Schumacher has won more races and championships than any other driver in history.
STILL, specialists and fans opinions are not even close to be unanimous about him being the best. In fact, the majority, as far as I know, say Senna was the best. Isn't there something wrong with that?
There are a LOT to consider when talking about it, but sadly newcomers and some assholes just assume Schuey's seven titles make him the greatest.
The problem with that argument is that Senna and Prost were the only two of the Greats whose careers overlapped - and thus statistically detracted hugely from each other - without the other one there, both would have stats that tower over Schumacher (EVEN allowing Schui his massive advantage of team orders for 11 years at Ferrari - which Senna and Prost NEVER had.)
So I'm afraid that it's 1. Senna 2. Prost and Schumacher a very distant 3. (I cant rate Fangio and Clark - I never saw them.)
I'm not even convinced that Schui was better than Mansell - Mansell is still statistically 4th of all time after Schui, Prost and Senna, however he too would have had MASSIVE stats without the Great Senna and Prost detracting from his own scores.
Mansell as team number 1 in the best car for 11 years would have possibly been as dominant as Schui (as he showed in 92). (Schui Prost and Mansell had about equal pure speed - ie. as fast as anyone but Senna).
And G.Villeneuve is unique in some ways - some drivers were killed after they had ahieved greatness, some were killed so early we can't know, but Villeneuve was somewhere in between - he had done enough to show he was potentially one of, if not the greatest of all time, at least up to his era, and who knows had he been around from 82 to 88 with Senna and Prost, he may have polished up the rough edges to be a genuine contender for all time number 1. Certainly his pure speed was Senna-esque.
I remember James Hunt saying that no true champion would ever block his greates opponent from driving alonside with the same car cause after all that's the only fair comparison about the two...
Atrue champion would say hell yes bring him in let's see what he's got...Prost proved that he was scared.His days were effectively over when Ferrari fired him in 1991...Sorry to say cause I respect Prost as a driver and it was cause of him that Senna became Senna but he was too involved in politics....
Prost deserved the title in 89?mate NO WAY It was Prost's darkest moment smart I give you that but hell no.He should assume responsibility for deliberately hitting Senna not hide his tail between his legs....
No mate I am not with you on that Prost made a mess of it there.And 1993 Prost was not fair NOT noble Not a champ.
You want to be the best?go drive WITH the best do drive in the SAME car do not veto Senna.....That was a cowardice act that was bad.....
Mate - i was in Adelaide just 2 months ago at the Senna Chicane - 10 pm in the morning - any old day - 2 people in 10 minutes walking by shouted out to me (friendly)- "Still number 1"
Mate your videos are really for fans people who care and it's great to see there are many,i like the comments and the discussions so true....
You should go to some Schui fan babies videos too mate they will start saying crap but really I mean they have no real reasoning they will attack you personally cause they have nothing on Senna man just the stupid stats which are crap too ...
But don't tell me he is better than Hill or anyone Mallamoozoo cause he is a cheater if he had played fair
I would be able to say something good but not now...
Senna was ruthless man he was the toughest opponent to beat he left no doors opened he made no mistakes under pressure and he had no mercy on the track but he played fair ....And don't let me get started with Suzuka 89,90 man that's Prost's darkest moment in89...
Monaco 92 with Mansell or races in 93?94 even he got 3 poles and he was fighting against an illegal traction control system in Benetton and stil leading even at Imola that day!
Hi everyone, I really appreciate the intelligent comments and insight being contributed to this page. I do think Ayrton Senna was the greatest F1 driver I ever saw. The term being saw, I never got to see Fangio, Clark, Stewart, Moss etc race. Its hard for me to gauge how good these other drivers are when all I have are stories or video clips to go on, its like trying to explain to a blind man how a sunset looks, its just something you have to be there to experience.
With that said I consider myself a die hard F1 fan and also consider myself fairly neutral in the fanboy department. First I would like to say that I think the 80s up until 1993 was the greatest time for f1 racing. Their were so many great drivers during that time such as Senna, Prost, Mansell, Piquet, and even the supporting non championship drivers were damn good and probably could have won championships in other eras.
I think that this time (particularly the 80s) offered some of, if not, the best mix of competition in terms of both driver and machine. some arguments I would like to make, Senna did not deserve the title in 88, Prost had scored more points than him and had been more consistent. Sure even Prost said Senna deserved the title but Prost had been more consistent and won one less race than Senna. Also I do think that in 89 Prost won the title fairly,
I feel that Senna had made a mistake trying to cut on the inside, especially when the risks where so high and it was not the best possible moment to pass. This brings me to 1990 I wished that Senna would not have let his emotions gotten the best and would not have taken Prost out, sure things didnt go favorably for him and sure he may have felt that Prost had closed the door on him the previous year but
88- Prost got more points but so what? - in a McLaren 3 seconds a lap ahead of the others the title should only be decided on who could beat the other guy the most and it was Senna 8 to 7. They both had 1 mechanical failure (Senna@Brazil, Prost@ Monza)- Prost only got more points due to Schlesser ramming Senna out at Monza (Schlesser apologized profusely to Senna in the pits later) which would have given Senna 9 wins (and the McLaren a perfect 16)
89 - Again the Mclaren was the best car in the field, though not as much so as the previous year, and Senna again won more races than Prost 6 to 4. Again Prost got more points only due to Senna's misfortunes whilst leading - this year far more dramatically - In addition to the 6 races Senna won, he was leading 5 others when mechanical failure struck (USA- electrics, Canada- engine, France- transmission on restart, Monza- oil hose, Britain-gearbox.) ALL of Prost's 4 wins were thus inherited
Prost had only 1 mechanical failure (Canada- suspension) but wasn't leading Senna anyway. So again - winning on points...meh - who cares - Senna blew Prost's doorhandles off in 89 - it was arguably Senna's most dominant year ever - even more than the 3 WC he officially won - and all observers knew it - Senna had become clearly number 1 and Prost had been shown up and left the team - never again prepared to race Senna in equal equipment.
in-car video on prosts car and overhead helicopter shot shows clearly - he turned in so early that had he not hit Senna he would have clean missed the corner on the INSIDE!!! - ie. he turned in to crash them both out. So Senna should have won yet another race - 7 on the road and another 5 without mechanical failures.
9senna also lead Australia until crashing in zero visibility (a racing accident but at least he was out there - Prost didnt even drive)
People dont seem to realize that winning on points is meaningless - the points system is totally arbitrary depending on the philosophical whims of the rulemakers - if they suddenly felt a win was worth 20 points and second just 5 points, the rankings would completely change even for identical on-road results.
So i never cared about "points" just who is the most dominant ON-TRACK and it was Senna every year.
90 - this time Prost had a better car than Senna with the technically far superior Ferrari chassis and semi-auto gearbox yet again Senna won more races 6 to 5. (This time ALSO with more points - though i think thats always irrelevant).
Suzuka 90 was the eruption of the volcano that had been simmering a long time - since 89 - after being ripped off of the title by the blatant politics in japan disqualification (that even Prost's own team protested) he wasn't taking that shit again!....
Senna paid Prost back for what he'd done in 89 - an eye for an eye and no problem with that, even regardless of even yet more meddling by Balestre - switching the starting positions AFTER quali to give Prost the best start - Senna had worked his whole life to be the best driver in the world and here he was faced with Balestre handing 2 WC to Prost that should have gone to Senna as by far the better driver (which would actually change the relative count by 4 WC's). NO WAY WAS HE TAKING THAT SHIT!
By paying prost back - he at least salvaged 1 of the Titles he deserved and reduced the rip off to 1 - so the WC scoreline ended up after 1990 at: Prost 3 WC, Senna 2 when it should have been Senna 3, Prost 2 (had Suzuka 89 not happened). Had Suzuka 90 not happened - it may have been Prost 4 Senna 1, due solely to politics, despite Senna blowing Prosts doors off in quali and races for 3 years - by FAR the superior driver as the whole world saw.
NOTE - I am a huge prost fan - as a former amateur racing driver of 10 years myself - i KNOW how hard it is and how talented those F1 guys are - even the "monkeys at the back" as one nameless driver who shall remain nameless recently infamously described it. And in my opinion - Prost is possibly the 2nd greatest driver of all time - of all 800-odd F1 drivers there have ever been, and all 100 GP winners, and all 30 World Champs - NONE were better than Prost....except Senna - and by FAR!
Its unfortunate for Prost that he happened to be around in the era of the greatest ever Senna - if Senna had never been born, Prost's stats would have been so fantastic that even the Schui fanboys couldn't argue with it - Prost would have won around 75 GP and 7 World Titles (in 50 GP and 3 years less than Schui's career). He would surely have assumed the mantle previously held by Fangio as the Colossus of F1.
I think that this was one of Sennas darkest days in F1, I think what made it so dark was that he was fully capable of beating him fairly. Im not a Senna hater, as I said I think he is the greatest ever and definitely my favorite of all time. As a final argument I think that Prost was only a few steps below Senna, and was a damn good racer who I could easily see being placed in the top three or even as the greatest of all time. Anybody else have any thoughts on these three incidents.
(All but 1 of the drivers here in the top 11 was dead or retired anyway - the only exception being Schumi. So nothing could possibly have changed, except that Schumi may have moved up or down from 5th - let's be diplomatic then and leave him at 5th :)
5 world titles later and he MAY have moved up or down? In the coming years he won more WCs than any other driver and you think he only MAY have moved up. Haha sure boss.
Its a bit pathetic the way you sensor what comments will appear by the way.
That's 5 WC's with the best cars of all time and slave team-mates with their hands tied by contract- so they were meaningless results- that's why Schu's ranking doesnt change since this survey in 97. (As I've said before Schui fucked up by demanding these team-orders - the selfish bastard didnt contemplate the world's backlash against his demands for No 1 status- if he had played fair he may have won 4 or 5 WC's anyway and been regarded with genuine respect, instead of contempt for hollow stats.
haha? You think the 2000, 2001, 2003 Ferraris were as good as this years Brawn? So every world championship that has been won in the best/equal best car is now meaningless? Brilliant. That means basically every world chamionship ever won has been completely meaningless.
No driver has ever won a world championship in a bad car. In Senna's 3 championship years his team mate finished 2nd twice and 4th once. They must have been really shit cars. Haha 2 of them were in completely dominant cars!
00,01,03 Ferrari's were about as dominant as this year's Brawn is over Red Bull, and then with Schui's advantage of slave team-mates (which Brawn now admits was a mistake) then yeah he had it even easier than Button this year. And of course in 02 and 04 - it was like everyone but Ferrari was using an F3 car.
You obviously didnt watch the 2000, 2001 or 2003 seasons if you think those cars were anything like this years Brawn. This years Brawn is virtually unbeatable. Even Rubens who has been past it for the last 3 years is still competitive in it. Are you trying to say Rubens is still as good now as he was when he was at Ferrari? You cant really believe that can you?
Why was Sennas 91 title meaningful? He had a close to fastest car which was infinitely more reliable than Mansells?
Senna lost 5 of 6 gears in Brazil, at Monaco (I think) after the race the fuel pump was hanging by a thread and about to fall off.. The alternator died in Canada cutting the engine, and at both Silverstone and Germany his mechanics underfueled his car and he ran dry and parked on the last lap.
Sure Williams had some gearbox problems early on, but it was a vastly superior car and so fast that even Patrese was sometimes faster than Prost and Senna!
The 00,01,03 Ferrari was the best car, though by a very slightly lesser margin than the 09 Brawn, but Schui having exclusive number 1 status of it more than makes up for the very slight difference in relative advantage over the 2nd best car (McLaren in '00,'01, Williams in '03, Red Bull in '09)
Rubens now is unleashed - at ferrai his hands were tied - so if anything he is BETTER now than he was then. So Button whooping Rubens means he may be even better than Schui. (Rubens himself says after teaming with them both, "Button is as talented as Schui, though not as consistent")
But you're almost right about one thing - almost every World Title is per se is meaningless - in half of them the better driver was beaten by a better car.
There are 3 exceptions in the past 22 years - Prost in 87, Senna in 90 and Senna in 91. So as far as I am concerned the true picture of relative achievements is measured by "Meaningful World Championships": Senna 2, Prost 1, Schui 0
Perfect Point. In my time You mean Prost in 86. The 2005 Mclaren was also the best car but less reliable than the renault. To me and always, the 1991 season was the most perfectly driven season by any driver in history. Senna virtually made no mistakes. Reliability or not, the Fw13 was a faster car than the Mclaren. And yes, usually the best car wins and not the best driver, if the car is close enough, the best driver will win, unless you have them in the same car...something Schuey didnt
Has Schuemacher ever had a team mate that was world championship caliber outside of Piquest's last season? I terms of team mates, no one has had a more outstanding cast than Prost. Herbert, Vos, Barrichello and Irvine are the caliber of Prost or Berger.
I'll go further malla: Ross Brawn strategy (and the improvised tactics on the race) were always organized to allow Schuey have a clear edge on his teammate. There were many races in which I believe Barrichello, Irvine or Massa had the possibility to still have a go, but suddenly, "something" happened, and strange fuel improvised tactics or different tyres compound were given to them, so as not to jeopardize Schuey's race..... A lack of respect to sport itself....
A quote from Eddie Irvine: "It's true, Ferrari can be very flexible with their strategy but - again - that is down to Schumacher's incredible pace.
"So when a McLaren pits, Schumacher is able to run for several more laps, open up the lead he needs, then come in for his stop - and return to the track in the lead.
..."That makes technical director Brawn come out looking like some kind of superstar. I'm sorry to shatter the illusion that many have, but he has little to do with Schuey's success.
"Take Schumacher out of the equation and what would Ferrari have won?"
Of course im sure you know better than the man who was his team mate for 4 years...
Haha sure man you keep believing that. This Honda rebadged as Brawn car is superior to anything Michael ever drove, perhaps with the exception of the 2004 Ferrari, and has been in development for 2 years. It might even be as good as Senna's 1988 McLaren.
Whats your point anyway? Thats still 6 other world titles.
The Honda/Brawn is the best car - but so were Schui's Ferraries in 2000,2001,2002,2003,2004 (when he won his 5 meaningless WC's). And at least Button is doing it on equal terms against the same guy that Schui demanded team-orders imposed on. So perhaps Schui wasn't even as good as Button - the picture looks worse for Schumi as time goes on - now that he has been gone quite a while the gloss is fading and people are starting to see the real substance - maybe he wasn't even top 5 of the greats?
No but button has been in F1 for 9 years and has been beaten by team mates on 4 occasions so i think it is safe to say he isnt the driver schumacher was.
Barrichello was never restricted in qualifying or race pace at Ferrari. Schumacher got preferential strategy but Rubens was never even remotely close in the exact same equipment. And you know that.
I think Button is a very very good driver in a good car but when he has a bad car he is shit. Scumacher in a bad car was still brilliant.
Yes I agree. Button isn't really great - he's competent with some strong points but not complete - he is being flattered by a fantastic car- thats the problem with motorsport - drivers can win sometimes without being a complete package. I admit that however good Schu was or wasn't - he was consistent - only Senna and Schu were ALWAYS a threat, even with shit cars. No-one else ever was (Hamilton is proving in 09 to be another "needs a good car" winner.)
ie. just as button is winning everything and may win 17 GP in 2009- that doesn't make him as good as Schu, similarly Schu 5WC's in 2000- 2004 don't make him as good as Senna. Stats are affected by so many other factors than driver. And in Schu's case those other factors gave him privileges other drivers never even dreamed of- he was flattered by circumstance. None the less he was one of the greats- as i have said, had he not had such privileges he may still have won 4 WC and gained more respect.
I am often thinking about different ways to measure drivers' ability - as the usual statistical parameters are almost meaningless (the driver being only 20% factor in the results (unless all cars are identical - which rarely occurs even in go-karts)).
From day to day the skill set required by a driver changes (eg. wet day - dry day, or understeer - oversteer, or street circuit-speedway etc) Actually it can even manifest from corner to corner within a lap. Often a driver has few bogey corners.
This is a crude model at this point but I like it as it more accurately correlates with driver talent than the primitive statistical measures of scores or even strikerates for wins, poles, WC's etc.
LMAO.... Please, thumb me up people, lol, I'm starting to get attacked by thumb down boys, lol.....
malla, we're waiting for another f your videos or channals, and go on with the debates, agreeing or not, on the F1 we like it best, the one of the 80's and early 90's, pre-Schumacher era, lol.... ;-)
Senna is the only driver to beat a 4 time champ in the history of F1 in the same car no team orders in 88.. in fact he easily had the measure of Prost..
Then some schumi fans always say Schumi beat Piquet... yeah when piquet was 38! older than when schumi retired!!
89 cost Senna badly in terms of his apparent career success- without the horrendous bad luck with mechanical failures (and the disqual in japan) he should have been World Champ in 89- should have been 4 WC in a row (only done by Fangio prior to that).
And the Senna V Prost tale of the tape should have been Senna 4, Prost 3.
None of that matters to rational analysts, but mediocre intellects like Murray Walker are heavily swayed by "official" stats and it clouds their judgement.
I'm not sure malla, honestly. Even when Ayrton was marvellous, superb, I don't see why Prost wouldn't have been a deserved Champion in 1989. After all, He won it and not in Japan, He won it in the remaining 13/16 races He scored points. Machanical attrition existed not only for Senna but also for Prost, both had the same possibilities of having the same rate of mechanical problems, given the circumstance They were driving the same car. I'd change your "should have been" by a "could have been".
Look it the opposite way malla: imagine 1989 title was "robbed" to Senna, may I claim 1990 title was "robbed" to Prost? They came to the penultimate round almost under the same situation: Senna had to win in Suzuka 89 to have a chance (which He didn't) and Prost had to do the same in Suzuka 90 (which He didn't). Maybe we could change the titles, 89 for Senna and 90 for Prost!!! Again: Prost 4, Senna 3. Anyway, forget about stats because is misleading. Look at Schuey: 7 titles.... so what?
Bellof is a good example of "We will never know". From all accounts - he was a pure racer with a Gilles Villeneuve attitude. Certainly it's possible he would have been a great - but we just didn't see enough of him.
Another example - in 1984 at Detroit - a flying wheel narrowly missed Senna's head. After he was killed in 94 i saw that again and thought "Well - at least it didnt happen in '84 or we'd never have known the greatest driver of all time during the following 10 years."
bellof was not faster than senna.. he tested for a f1 team with senna and another driver and out of the three Senna was of course fastest.. but its true that bellof was fast
Bellof, Senna, and another driver tested for a F1 team on the same day once. Naturally Senna came out on top, speed and technically so i don't think Bellof was better than senna
What tests kouzouka? When Ayrton tested a Williams in 83 or when He tested a McLaren in 83? Other car? If they tested different cars we can't compare time so, but what I remember is that Ayrton tested Rosberg's Williams and after the testing He had improved all times done by Rosberg in that circuit, by 1 second, in his 1st test!!! With McLaren was similar: Dennis told him sending signals on the pit wall: "lower!""lower!", but He went faster and faster, not even Dennis could believe it!!!
I think it may have been in a Brabham - Senna Bellof and Brundle all tested the same car on the same day.
Senna's engine blew and he demanded a second go where he was the fastest - Brundle was blown away not so much by Senna's speed but his audacity in DEMANDING another go when he was a virtual nobody !
Exactly - if Alesi had been killed in his first ferrari race after impressing greatly in the tyrell - everyone would have said he was one of the most promising drivers cut down early - but as we saw, he never delivered on the promise.
But in reality, he only had 1 good f1 race, sat out the second half on 84, and what did he do in 85 before the SPA accident??? I dunno, but I think that Bellof is rated way too high.
I don't even rate his Monaco 84 GP as special - the car was non-turbo which in the wet is far more controllable, and Tyrell were later disqualified from the whole season for cheating with weight - he was probably underweight in Monaco too - and NOTHING improves speed like losing weight - especially in the wet - so in reality he had the perfect car for a wet race on a street circuit - light, agile and not an overwhelming amount of power.
Agree on Alesi malla: just look at his impressive race in USA 90 but his later development in 1991: with a sucking car and team, He did absolutely nothing. Only managed to outqualify teammate Prost in some races and even fought with him in some occasion, loosing almost always against him (He beat Prost in 4/16 races). F1 it's about "spectacular or so called "brave styles", but about skills focused on getting the results. This is a bussines, no time to waste in putting on a show. Go and WIN!!!
Beating prost 4 out of 16 is no mean feat - Alesi definitely had potential - but he squandered it - because talent isn't enough - a driver must also be smart and work hard to hone the talent.
Everytime we see spectacular driving styles, like the ones of Bellof, Arnoux, Alesi, Montoya, Gilles, Peterson, Senna, etc., we inclined ourselves to overrating them at first glance... But when you analise them carefully, you realised that "spectacular" styles means nothing by itself. Just look upon Ayrton: He became the Best once He matured enough to make his "spectacular" way disappear, He was not spectacular in 91 or 93, but got results against a stronger opposition. That really matters!!!
Well that is really my favorite subject- when racing karts- my buddy and I would spend hours talking about driving styles, vehicle set ups, just everything relating to technique and skill.
As experienced talent scouts know- REALLY fast drivers start ragged and fast (Villeneuve, Senna, Schui etc) and then become smooth and even faster, but drivers who start smooth and mediocre never become ULTRA fast (eg. Hill).
But Senna was already the fastest even in his 2nd year- already the polemeister!
Senna wasnt just a great driver, he was an amazingly kind and generous person; moreso than Schumacher. He gave millions of dollars to children's charities and didnt even brag about it or anything for publicity, and people only found out after his death
I definitely agree with you, Ayrton did alot for humanity and the fact he kept it secret shows how decent of a human being he was, I mean celebrities these days flaunt the fact they act charitable and give money to soothe their ego and actually convince themselves they are human and arent motivated by the millons they have, its just greed, they dont care about those who suffer...Ayrton however he was just amazing and totally felt the problems in mankind needed to addressed, what a man!
Ayrton Senna at the top, right where he needs to be! I mean Ayrton was literally part of the car, his mind, everything was in harmony with anything he drove and his statistics are incredible! I understand Murray thinks Schumi is the greatest & that is purely his opinion which I respect, but the buck definitely goes to the true Ayrton fans and F1 journalists, honchos who vote for Ayrton because he deserves the title, & only death stopped him from being on top today! thats just the way it is!
Death didn't stop him being on top - it stopped him being on top by so far that even ignorami would know it, but he already did enough in his time that the experts know what they saw and what he was - a giant - a gargantuan giant of the extreme art of Formula 1 race-car driving - the greatest there could possibly ever be.
Its a fact Ayrton is the greatest, statistically & he still holds the world record for most consecutive pole positions and as race leader for the entire race in F1 history
Indeed - if you look at laps leading the race and not simply wins - Senna's stats are better than Schui's - Schui had far superior mechanical reliability (simply due to 21st century engineering technology) - Senna lost a hell of a lot of wins with mechanical failures whilst he was leading the race - Senna's car's broke down in about 25% of his races - compared to Schui's car breaking down in only about 5% of his races.
Hi malla! I was reading the postings and I said to myself: when you have a high rate mechanical attrition, it's time to ask yourself if you're not doing something wrong..... Ayrton started to lower his mechanical failures by the end of his career, I'd say, from 1990 on..... even finishing races with mechanical problems (Brazil 91, Imola 91, and several more). Prior to 1990 was another issue, with 1989 at the top: 1989 was a DISASTER for him..... The car broke, or He crashed....
When a backmarker has mechanical failures - it could be lack of driver skill, but with Senna - the most skillful driver of all time - a man described by John Watson as "it's as if he has 4 arms and 4 legs" of course that was never the case. I think Senna's huge number of mechanical failures in the first half of his career was simply low quality engineering - technology improves with time and from 1990 onwards cars were getting pretty reliable. By 2000 onwards, Schui's Ferraris were bulletproof.
It's not a freaking joke, 95% of Schumacher fans are all aged around 17 years old, I checked it out and they are COMPLETELY CLOSED to anything and any other drivers, have absolutely no opinions, man this is a disease!!!!Unreal, I feel sorry for their limited intelligence.
Yes - Schumi really only has teen fans that claim he's is the bet ever (it's a scientific fact teenage brains haven't fully developed yet) and Murray Walker (who's love of the sport is great but he ain't much smarter than the average teenager.)
I liked Murray up until I was about 19 then started to realize I already knew more than him and became very disappointed with him - how could someone of his experience learn so little?
In regard to Murray, for whatever reason, He was (and I think He still is) too much of a Professor fanboy, lol, which is valid, OK, I LOVE Prost, you know, but He should be honest enough and recognize it!!! I guess He knew a lot about F1, but his problem is that He always tries to turn things into Prost's side, or even Schuey's side, I don't know if it's due to He really like them, or just because He feels some personal dislike on Senna....
I dont think he disliked Senna - he just couldn't understand Senna's stratospheric genius - too far above hi\s intelligence to comprehend - Murray identified more with the "working class" guys of Mansell, Schumacher etc. It's more to do with his personal values than his understanding of what a racing driver really is. To rate Schui number 1 of all time is final proof that Murray really has limited grasp on the subject.
ROFL malla, Murray did a lot of Top10 lists and He changes the placing of all of them as He pleases, Fangio nº1, Senna nº1, Schuey nº1, then Prost 2nd ahead of Senna (3rd), then Senna 2nd above Schuey (nº3) and Prost (nº4), etc. I respect his ratings as much as the ratings you or me can have according to our personal likes and deslikes, no problem at all, but you can't change your that much all the time! And don't forget: He loves Mansell, lol...
Senna and Prost were reported to use his french and brazilian media as a strong weapon to survive but, honestly, I never saw a driver that made such a sophisticated and clever use of his countryfellows journalists and media as Nigel. And it's valid, not all in F1 is about being the "fastest", this is a serious bussines and you have to manage this things if you want to survive. Nigel was damn good in marketing himself as a "national hero". "Me against the cruel world!" It worked! :-)
I think Nigel's "Me against the world" attitude was not purely a marketing angle though- I think he genuinely held that attitude and rightly so- Senna and Prost had more god gifted talents- but noone worked harder than Nigel to get to F1- he had a bulldog tenacity to not let go of his goal. It was a long hard road for Nige, and who knows- maybe if he'd had more time on the track in his early years rather than working to pay, he may have been even better!
Talented as Senna was, he had the luxury of working hard in racing only (which to his credit he always acknowledged, unlike most rich kids who think it is a right).
But Nigel WORKED hard in regular life to even get there- which must have detracted from his racing repertoire- hence we speak of him being fast but not flexible and consistent like Senna and Prost but I am sure S and P had 2 to 10 times more laps under their belts when they got their F1 starts- who knows how good Nige COULD've been?
Interesting point of view malla... we all know it was very difficult for Nigel to come up there on an F1 car, and even before reaching F1 He had to risk even his financial prospects so as to cope with the situation of being part of racing, a bussines where money and marketing are at the top! But I guess he liked a little bit people think about him as "a good self-made man plenty of courage that battles against evil people"..... In any case, it's part of the game, and it's valid!!!
It's tough driving on the Limit - to do that consistently you gotta really really want it, which is interpreted as selfishness. Motivation and selfishness are easily confused by outside observers.!
Mansell was an outstanding racer, hot and quick as the hell itself! But He was labeled as a non-inteligent man, which isn't true, specially on marketing himself. His typical boxing spectacles with Senna (quite often outside the track than inside the car), his whining on every teammate He had (as if all men in F1 were against him), his "shows" specially in UK (just remember one example: his kiss on the track where He overtook Piquet), were things that speak of his abilities on marketing....
In a sport like motoracing, so many things can alter a results, but in a sport like tennis, you are the absolute master of your fate, can't blame your shoes, nor the weather, nor the racket, so in that sport numbers DO COUNT. So that is why in f1, Schumacher's numbers are just that numbers....
schumacher is a great champion, but there's a big difference between him and all the other champions including Ayrton. That difference is that most of schumacher 7 titles were won thanks to team orders, cheating, lets admit that Schumacher is the most "helped" driver of all times. Senna won all his world championships ALONE, competing with everything and everyone
A typical Senna fan is: He is old enough to appreciate any f1 driver, and is capable to make the difference between how and with what he became great. Is always prepared to accept Senna's wrongdoings. Is willing to discuss the pros and cons no matter what the driver is. Has the maturity to accept the obvious fact that Senna was down right wreckless on his day WITHOUT attempting any lame cover up. Admires Schumacher's genious talent and awesome speed, hence, he is a logical fan.
Excellent Jeepy your quote about "A typical Senna fan", bravo!. 100% agreement here, no need for further explanations, that's exactly how I consider myself to be, that way you explained.... Maybe I went a little bit further when I become a Senna-Prost" fan, lol, but being honest: I feel real enjoyment feeling this way, I can be happy when Senna wins and when Prost wins, lol. They were The Best in their era, I guess that's almost out of any serious discussion....... ;-)
You can't take it seriously? It's the finding of 43 experts. So take it seriously and learn to think as deeply as they do. Do not be so influenced by the Schui marketing machine.
Schuey's marketing machine really existed (still exists!), but that machine isn't bigger than any other marketing machine. F1 is a real bussines, and marketing machines are like monsters that eat everything that come across their path... There were a lot of marketing machines (involving ALL these drivers in this Top 10), but there was one that always amazed me a lot: Nigel Mansell's marketing machine. It was a machine controlled by himself, which speaks of his intelligence on the matter...
I always think of it this way - a good paradigm that cuts through all the stats and bad luck and team-orders and unreliable cars etc etc - who would you choose to drive for your team if you were a team owner? Even better - who would you bet your house or even your life on?
I am sure when push comes to shove in that situation - even Schumi fanboys would capitulate and side with the invincible strength of the Senna!
Nope - Senna was more popular because he was better - his popularity was due to his talent. In turn, that talent was born out of his extreme emotionality.
"No surprise really was it? So let's forget...that dreadful day at Imola...and celebrate the life and times of the greatest racing driver who ever lived! No fewer than 22 of the 43 member jury put the great Brazilian at the top of their lists, and rightly so. No-one in the sport's long history has dominated such capable team-mates as comprehensively as Senna has, nor ruled his era more imperiously.....
And while we all have our favourite Senna races, he will be best remembered for his freakishly rapid qualifying laps - his supremacy in this department underlined by a peerless record of 68 (sic) pole positions."
He shared some races (6) with Hakkinen and Hill, but they were just a few so We can hardly take them both seriously as an opposition, who in fact, They weren't at all, not only due to their status in the team, but because their qualities weren't high enough to resist Senna at his best. He would have eat them anyway.... They same counts for the teammates He had in England before reaching F1: compared with Senna, they were nothing.....
There's only one thing I don't agree buddy malla: the capable teammates Ayrton had. He had only one serious contender He had to face with inside the team, we all know who He was..... I don't rate Cecotto, Nakajima, Berger, Andretti (rofl), Dumfires,etc., as "capable" in the sense We are used to use the word "capable". Surely they were capable, but several steps behind him. One one of his teammates (in F1) put fierce resistance, the rest were virtually screwed up by Senna as if they didn't exist!
Yes - i am sure whoever wrote that (probably the editor of F1 Magazine) really was thinking just of Prost when he wrote that. But Berger was once considered the best of the rest behind Senna, Prost and Mansell - so Senna's 2nd best team-mate was better than even Schui's best team-mate. And the years with Prost and Berger account for 50% of Senna's career. Schui's team-mates weren't allowed to challenge him and they were not even great even if they were allowed to. Senna did it way tougher!
The frenchman was the man, yes, lol. Not because you or me say so, but because Ayrton himself stated clearly: "there wasn't a harder or a weaker opponent than Prost; due to circumstances, luck, etc., He was the rival". Quite a compliment! I like this vid (v=5wEYQjyxFTw&feature=channel_page) and what He says from 6:04 to 6:35 is more than clear... He doesn't pronounce Prost name, not even by chance (lol) but we all know He was talking about him.... And He was right...
And I read somewhere that Gordon Myrray, who worked with both said that Senna was much much more cerebral than Prost, mentally much stronger. I'm not saying that Prost wasd a weakling, but was a cut below Senna in that department.
Yes mate - but we should not be too hard n Prost for that - Everyone was a cut below Senna in that department! That was basically where all Senna's power came from - his mental strength. (As Berger said; "His strength was mental - he could concentrate in such a way that he do work which was unbelievable." "He was in a different place, operating on a totally different level, not just 1 step but 2 steps ahead of the rest of us."
I don't know what is to be "more cerebral" but We could agree on being "stronger" on mental terms.... Now, that "mental strenght" sometimes took him to misleading conceptions of the responses He would recieve from his rivals. What happened with Mansell in Estoril 89 and Prost in Suzuka 89 is just an example. Being that strong, going for the lead or for the gap no matter what, did He really expected his rivals would offer a peaceful red carpet to his desires? ALL wanted to win, not only Ayrton...
We also have to take into account that Senna used to admire not only "Prost because of his results" but also "Mansell because of his determination". Let's give Nigel a credit because He deserves it. Now, I'd like to know what could have happened with a team "Mansell-Senna". Senna would have succeded, specially due to this: Prost, fast as He was, had to find another way "the Lauda way", to have a chance on him, but Nigel only had speed, He wasn't as "eclastic" as Prost. So: Senna would win...
Correct. Mansell had more bulldog determination than Prost, but not the finesse or skill. On his day Mansell could outrace anyone, but he was not "on his day" on a regular enough basis to match Senna or Prost over 16 races. (But neither could more than a few drivers in history manage to be competitive on a regular basis.)
I think an interesting team-mate pair would have been Mansell - Schumacher. They had comparable speed and Mansell would not accept bully tactics from anyone!
I agree on this about Mansell: as a raw speed driver, He was a hell of a racer. And we have to say that when He was on his day, even without Senna's superior speed or Prost's refinement, He could match (and beat them). In fact, there were times in which Mansell wanted to be the best, and He was the best. But in a long term, to be really a cut above, you need to be at your best at least 11 or 12 rounds per season, not 4 or 5. That's was the main difference, generally speaking. Nice racer indeed!
Now i understand why my dad named me after the GREATEST and MOST BEST AYRTON SENNA...................U ROCK AYRTON SENNA!!!!!!!!*sob*
ayrtonperful 1 year ago
Hi ... I´m doing a survey about Senna that I never seen before ... when I finished it, I will let you know... This will put other racing drivers on the floor...
Senna forever !
Senna para sempre !
saci30 1 year ago
1-SENNA...2- THE OTHERS
plcts70 1 year ago
1-SENNA...2- THE OTHERS
plcts70 1 year ago
ive seen this ive subscribed 2 this mag 4 years n i love it
MILFMILF221 2 years ago
Mallamoozoo, other survey about the great Senna:
December 2009
An Autosport magazine survey which polled 217 Formula One drivers had the Brazilian on top, ahead of seven-times champion Schumacher and five-times champion Juan Manuel Fangio.
rcrg72 2 years ago
Yeah thanks i already made a video about that one too. Cheers
mallamoozoo 2 years ago
@rcrg72 Just few things: PlanetF1 conduct a pool over 22 of the 24 actual drivers (except Mercedes' Team) and 12 select Ayrton Senna as the Best of all the times. Top Gear in July release a program in honor to the 50 years old of Senna and you see some racers selecting Senna as the number one....including Schumacher...
joseavs 1 year ago
where did you get that?
tobalynorberto 2 years ago
what?
mallamoozoo 2 years ago
@mallamoozoo the magazine!
tobalynorberto 2 years ago
At a shop.
mallamoozoo 2 years ago
obviously
tobalynorberto 2 years ago
In those days the FIA rules were that the poleman could choose his starting position. Normaly one chooses for the inside of the first corner, but Senna didn't because of to much dust on that starting position. Balestre refused to let him start on the other position, so Aytron declared publicly before the race that Prost wouldn't make it to the first corner. How many drivers dare to say that? Ayrton was in his right. Balestre was a big a...! Only hungry for power and money. He was an ex-SS in WW2
digoclocks 2 years ago
@digoclocks
Wow - is that right - Balestre was a Nazi? Its extremely disconcerting to hear that after recent revelations of Mosely's Nazi family and Bernie saying publicly recently "There's too much democracy in F1" and "Hitler got things done".
What the hell is up with the Nazi connections in F1?
mallamoozoo 2 years ago
But anyway - back to racing - yes Senna was 100% justified in punting Prost off - even regardless of Prost taking Senna out in 89 - the grid manipulation was totally unacceptable. Senna was saying "NO WAY IN HELL I'M GONNA COP THAT SHIT!" - it was a heroic move - I salute him for drawing a line in the sand and saying "YOU WILL NOT PUSH ME BACK".
mallamoozoo 2 years ago
MMM, I don't agre hee malla: crashing a car in the very 1st corner of a race is a demonstration of lack of self comfidence. At least He could have done the same Prost did the previous year, who led the 90% of the race and cashed against him since He had nothing to loose. Push hard, go for it, and this time Prost WASN'T going to close the door: if He had done it, He would loose the title at the same time.... What Ayton did HAS NO justifying reason at all (as what Alain did WASN'T as well).
lucianoestivill 2 years ago
OK my friend we must agree to disagree on that one - i think Senna was justified for 2 reasons:
1. Revenge for Japan 89
2. Balestre messing with the grid positions in Jap 90.
I dont think those 2 points can be forgotten when judging the 90 Crash- they are integral to why Senna did it- if those 2 points did not exist- I agree then it would have been the worst act in F1 history. But they did exist and cannot be separated form what happened.
Prost had no such excuses for what he did in Japan 89.
mallamoozoo 2 years ago
I'd prefer if;
1. If Prost hadnt crashed Senna out in Japan 89
2. If Senna hadn't been disqualified n Japan 89 in Balestre's kangaroo court.
Senna may or still may not have won the 89 WC.
3. If Balestre hadn't messed with the grid in Japan 90 - then Senna may have got to the first corner first and won it clean.
But unfortunately these IF's didn't happen. I admire Senna for not accepting Balestre's unjust interference and manipulation. It was simply not acceptable..
mallamoozoo 2 years ago
@mallamoozoo So believing in his talent He believe that no one was faster than him on even terms. I mean who goes out with 3 minutes left in qualifying for just one run? his loosing added to his legend. It made him a better driver...look at 1991...perfect season. He was no longer going to leave it in the hands of other 0 mistakes....can any one in any F1 season do what Senna did in 1991
dalebshelton 2 years ago
@mallamoozoo
personaly, i like strong leadership. Unfortunatly most tirans only think about there own wellfare and there close friends.
That german guy did at least some good things. thanks to him we have the Nurnburgring and Hockenheim, lol.
Did you know that Enzo was also famous for his dictatorship? Few people dare to disagree with him.
One man stood up for his rights/opinion and that made Enzo outrages. That man wasn't fired.
His name: Niki Lauda.
digoclocks 2 years ago
I partially agree digoclocks mate, but the previous year Prost also dare to say everybody: "I will try to win this race and the title tomorrow. I'll go for 1st place because I'm decided to win this race. I'll push hard tomorrow but not more than needed. In any case, I'm tired of opening the door or lift to avoid a crash with him. This time I won't open the door anymore, He'd better go for it easily, if We figth it's gonna be hard. Again: I won't lift or open the door anymore". TEXTUAL QUOTE 89.
lucianoestivill 2 years ago
@lucianoestivill we've talked about this..I need you to prove my theory...Remember you telling me about the set ups. And it was you that asked me hard question I had to answer to myself. IT person s we won't get into it but this....See if you are being beaten its one thing, another thing to stop the bleeding...another thing to bring it all back to even. Much more effort and much more ass kicking. For everything that wen't right for Prost including 2 extra second in the pits..he made it up
dalebshelton 2 years ago
@lucianoestivill So he wasn't true to his word...he left the door open. For all the greatness that is Prost..when it matter Senna had that extra...Prost knew that in traffic Senna would get him....yes it was a smart move on his part....Senna by all means went for wins everytime out...Not to just score points.....Prost took his opportunity and did what he had to do.
dalebshelton 2 years ago
@lucianoestivill In 1991 he may have used the qualifying engine that was very powerfull...But what he did in Spa in 1991 was awesome..to hold a faster car behind...not to mention Perfect starts everytime...for races after races.
dalebshelton 2 years ago
Gilles should be ranked higher. At least a top ten place.
digoclocks 2 years ago
@digoclocks
In the 2009 Autosport biggest survey of all time - Gilles scored a top 10 place.
If he hadnt been killed he almost certainly would have been a top 5-er !
The ONLY driver ever who may have pushed mighty Ayrton for pure speed.
mallamoozoo 2 years ago
Th greatest hypothetical in my mnd is Ayrton Senna and Gilles Villeneuve in the same team - Im not really interested in Schui V Senna - im totally convinced it isnt even close. But Senna V Villeneuve - FAAARK! That would've been indescribable.
To be honest they may have driven each other to death.
Senna Villeneuve and Clark are the 3 fastest of all time - and all KIA - absolute legends all of them.
mallamoozoo 2 years ago
@mallamoozoo
i'm sure that all tree are having a lot of fun for the moment in paradise.
Why should one "Rest In Peace" when he leaves this planeth.
I saw them both in real life and hope to see them again. I was there when Gilles died but luckely i didn't saw the crash. I Had to race myself that day.
digoclocks 2 years ago
@digoclocks
Wow - would've been fantastic to watch Gilles Villeneuve drive in real life. Well my friend you are a part of history if you were racing there that day - and yes - a good thing you didn't see the crash. I was a kid at the time and just starting to watch F1 - but I remember my Dad - a Vietnam Vet, being quite upset when he heard the news so i realised this guy must have been special.
I met Ayrton once- one of the highlights of my life. And when he died was one of the lowlights!
mallamoozoo 2 years ago
@mallamoozoo
i was watching practice. Then i went to the chicane and the little hill. It's a nice spot to watch F1 in Zolder. You're very close to the cars. I just arrived there one minute after the crach. Me and mecanics prayed the rest off the day. Late at night we heard on tv that Gilles died. Nothing but tears in ours eyes. The reason he died is a whole different story.
After Ayrton died i lost interest in F1.
I raced with Ratzenberger who died the day before. I had beaten him once.
digoclocks 2 years ago
@digoclocks
Well - glad to make your acquaintance mate.
You must have been quite talented to even mix it with Ratzenberger. Any F1 driver is an extreme talent. Just to mix it with any of them at any stage of career means you must have been not too far yourself from F1 standard (relative to laymen).
Yes when F1 lost Senna, the fire went out. I continued watching but it was never the same again. For millions of us- the 80's was the golden era of F1. It can never again come close to that time.
mallamoozoo 2 years ago
Yes seeing Gilles driving his Ferrari was a real plesure. But that was also thrue for Schecter, Niki Lauda, Rosberg, Piquet, Prost, ...
Late 80's were indeed the best of F1. Good fights and much safer because of carbonfiber chassis.
I've send you an other message to your inbox.
digoclocks 2 years ago
Schumacher has won more races and championships than any other driver in history.
STILL, specialists and fans opinions are not even close to be unanimous about him being the best. In fact, the majority, as far as I know, say Senna was the best. Isn't there something wrong with that?
There are a LOT to consider when talking about it, but sadly newcomers and some assholes just assume Schuey's seven titles make him the greatest.
LouieGee 2 years ago
LOL, get a life and a new user name bubba. I would put alot of drivers before your cheating spoonface, drivers like Jim Clark.
lazerpod66 2 years ago
The problem with that argument is that Senna and Prost were the only two of the Greats whose careers overlapped - and thus statistically detracted hugely from each other - without the other one there, both would have stats that tower over Schumacher (EVEN allowing Schui his massive advantage of team orders for 11 years at Ferrari - which Senna and Prost NEVER had.)
So I'm afraid that it's 1. Senna 2. Prost and Schumacher a very distant 3. (I cant rate Fangio and Clark - I never saw them.)
mallamoozoo 2 years ago
I'm not even convinced that Schui was better than Mansell - Mansell is still statistically 4th of all time after Schui, Prost and Senna, however he too would have had MASSIVE stats without the Great Senna and Prost detracting from his own scores.
Mansell as team number 1 in the best car for 11 years would have possibly been as dominant as Schui (as he showed in 92). (Schui Prost and Mansell had about equal pure speed - ie. as fast as anyone but Senna).
mallamoozoo 2 years ago
And G.Villeneuve is unique in some ways - some drivers were killed after they had ahieved greatness, some were killed so early we can't know, but Villeneuve was somewhere in between - he had done enough to show he was potentially one of, if not the greatest of all time, at least up to his era, and who knows had he been around from 82 to 88 with Senna and Prost, he may have polished up the rough edges to be a genuine contender for all time number 1. Certainly his pure speed was Senna-esque.
mallamoozoo 2 years ago
man... Senna's the best. period... but that's a hell of an argument to add to the one's we always have to use when discussing that!
thanks!
K
KikoDorea 2 years ago
I remember James Hunt saying that no true champion would ever block his greates opponent from driving alonside with the same car cause after all that's the only fair comparison about the two...
Atrue champion would say hell yes bring him in let's see what he's got...Prost proved that he was scared.His days were effectively over when Ferrari fired him in 1991...Sorry to say cause I respect Prost as a driver and it was cause of him that Senna became Senna but he was too involved in politics....
stoookton1234 2 years ago
Prost deserved the title in 89?mate NO WAY It was Prost's darkest moment smart I give you that but hell no.He should assume responsibility for deliberately hitting Senna not hide his tail between his legs....
No mate I am not with you on that Prost made a mess of it there.And 1993 Prost was not fair NOT noble Not a champ.
You want to be the best?go drive WITH the best do drive in the SAME car do not veto Senna.....That was a cowardice act that was bad.....
I
stoookton1234 2 years ago
You can put in 1000 drivers and 1000 more and still Senna would be ranked at the top.
I want to go to Imola too one day aralisj...It's great to know how much people still love him!
stoookton1234 2 years ago 2
Mate - i was in Adelaide just 2 months ago at the Senna Chicane - 10 pm in the morning - any old day - 2 people in 10 minutes walking by shouted out to me (friendly)- "Still number 1"
and "Never forgotten"
Amazing!
mallamoozoo 2 years ago
Mate your videos are really for fans people who care and it's great to see there are many,i like the comments and the discussions so true....
You should go to some Schui fan babies videos too mate they will start saying crap but really I mean they have no real reasoning they will attack you personally cause they have nothing on Senna man just the stupid stats which are crap too ...
But don't tell me he is better than Hill or anyone Mallamoozoo cause he is a cheater if he had played fair
stoookton1234 2 years ago
I would be able to say something good but not now...
Senna was ruthless man he was the toughest opponent to beat he left no doors opened he made no mistakes under pressure and he had no mercy on the track but he played fair ....And don't let me get started with Suzuka 89,90 man that's Prost's darkest moment in89...
Monaco 92 with Mansell or races in 93?94 even he got 3 poles and he was fighting against an illegal traction control system in Benetton and stil leading even at Imola that day!
stoookton1234 2 years ago
that would of hit me emotionally
ayrtonsenna1960 2 years ago
Hi everyone, I really appreciate the intelligent comments and insight being contributed to this page. I do think Ayrton Senna was the greatest F1 driver I ever saw. The term being saw, I never got to see Fangio, Clark, Stewart, Moss etc race. Its hard for me to gauge how good these other drivers are when all I have are stories or video clips to go on, its like trying to explain to a blind man how a sunset looks, its just something you have to be there to experience.
californiagrown87 2 years ago
With that said I consider myself a die hard F1 fan and also consider myself fairly neutral in the fanboy department. First I would like to say that I think the 80s up until 1993 was the greatest time for f1 racing. Their were so many great drivers during that time such as Senna, Prost, Mansell, Piquet, and even the supporting non championship drivers were damn good and probably could have won championships in other eras.
californiagrown87 2 years ago
I think that this time (particularly the 80s) offered some of, if not, the best mix of competition in terms of both driver and machine. some arguments I would like to make, Senna did not deserve the title in 88, Prost had scored more points than him and had been more consistent. Sure even Prost said Senna deserved the title but Prost had been more consistent and won one less race than Senna. Also I do think that in 89 Prost won the title fairly,
californiagrown87 2 years ago
I feel that Senna had made a mistake trying to cut on the inside, especially when the risks where so high and it was not the best possible moment to pass. This brings me to 1990 I wished that Senna would not have let his emotions gotten the best and would not have taken Prost out, sure things didnt go favorably for him and sure he may have felt that Prost had closed the door on him the previous year but
californiagrown87 2 years ago
Thanks for you comments but re 88,89,90 Titles.
88- Prost got more points but so what? - in a McLaren 3 seconds a lap ahead of the others the title should only be decided on who could beat the other guy the most and it was Senna 8 to 7. They both had 1 mechanical failure (Senna@Brazil, Prost@ Monza)- Prost only got more points due to Schlesser ramming Senna out at Monza (Schlesser apologized profusely to Senna in the pits later) which would have given Senna 9 wins (and the McLaren a perfect 16)
mallamoozoo 2 years ago
89 - Again the Mclaren was the best car in the field, though not as much so as the previous year, and Senna again won more races than Prost 6 to 4. Again Prost got more points only due to Senna's misfortunes whilst leading - this year far more dramatically - In addition to the 6 races Senna won, he was leading 5 others when mechanical failure struck (USA- electrics, Canada- engine, France- transmission on restart, Monza- oil hose, Britain-gearbox.) ALL of Prost's 4 wins were thus inherited
....
mallamoozoo 2 years ago
...
Prost had only 1 mechanical failure (Canada- suspension) but wasn't leading Senna anyway. So again - winning on points...meh - who cares - Senna blew Prost's doorhandles off in 89 - it was arguably Senna's most dominant year ever - even more than the 3 WC he officially won - and all observers knew it - Senna had become clearly number 1 and Prost had been shown up and left the team - never again prepared to race Senna in equal equipment.
Re. Suzuka 89 - Prost was 100% at fault,
....
mallamoozoo 2 years ago
in-car video on prosts car and overhead helicopter shot shows clearly - he turned in so early that had he not hit Senna he would have clean missed the corner on the INSIDE!!! - ie. he turned in to crash them both out. So Senna should have won yet another race - 7 on the road and another 5 without mechanical failures.
9senna also lead Australia until crashing in zero visibility (a racing accident but at least he was out there - Prost didnt even drive)
So in 89 Senna whooped Prost hands down!
mallamoozoo 2 years ago
People dont seem to realize that winning on points is meaningless - the points system is totally arbitrary depending on the philosophical whims of the rulemakers - if they suddenly felt a win was worth 20 points and second just 5 points, the rankings would completely change even for identical on-road results.
So i never cared about "points" just who is the most dominant ON-TRACK and it was Senna every year.
mallamoozoo 2 years ago
90 - this time Prost had a better car than Senna with the technically far superior Ferrari chassis and semi-auto gearbox yet again Senna won more races 6 to 5. (This time ALSO with more points - though i think thats always irrelevant).
Suzuka 90 was the eruption of the volcano that had been simmering a long time - since 89 - after being ripped off of the title by the blatant politics in japan disqualification (that even Prost's own team protested) he wasn't taking that shit again!....
mallamoozoo 2 years ago
Senna paid Prost back for what he'd done in 89 - an eye for an eye and no problem with that, even regardless of even yet more meddling by Balestre - switching the starting positions AFTER quali to give Prost the best start - Senna had worked his whole life to be the best driver in the world and here he was faced with Balestre handing 2 WC to Prost that should have gone to Senna as by far the better driver (which would actually change the relative count by 4 WC's). NO WAY WAS HE TAKING THAT SHIT!
mallamoozoo 2 years ago
By paying prost back - he at least salvaged 1 of the Titles he deserved and reduced the rip off to 1 - so the WC scoreline ended up after 1990 at: Prost 3 WC, Senna 2 when it should have been Senna 3, Prost 2 (had Suzuka 89 not happened). Had Suzuka 90 not happened - it may have been Prost 4 Senna 1, due solely to politics, despite Senna blowing Prosts doors off in quali and races for 3 years - by FAR the superior driver as the whole world saw.
Nope - points don't mean shit!
mallamoozoo 2 years ago
NOTE - I am a huge prost fan - as a former amateur racing driver of 10 years myself - i KNOW how hard it is and how talented those F1 guys are - even the "monkeys at the back" as one nameless driver who shall remain nameless recently infamously described it. And in my opinion - Prost is possibly the 2nd greatest driver of all time - of all 800-odd F1 drivers there have ever been, and all 100 GP winners, and all 30 World Champs - NONE were better than Prost....except Senna - and by FAR!
mallamoozoo 2 years ago
Its unfortunate for Prost that he happened to be around in the era of the greatest ever Senna - if Senna had never been born, Prost's stats would have been so fantastic that even the Schui fanboys couldn't argue with it - Prost would have won around 75 GP and 7 World Titles (in 50 GP and 3 years less than Schui's career). He would surely have assumed the mantle previously held by Fangio as the Colossus of F1.
mallamoozoo 2 years ago
I think that this was one of Sennas darkest days in F1, I think what made it so dark was that he was fully capable of beating him fairly. Im not a Senna hater, as I said I think he is the greatest ever and definitely my favorite of all time. As a final argument I think that Prost was only a few steps below Senna, and was a damn good racer who I could easily see being placed in the top three or even as the greatest of all time. Anybody else have any thoughts on these three incidents.
californiagrown87 2 years ago
asd Villeneuve 11 :(
emifisa 2 years ago
This classisication is made in 1998
alkoolikus1001 2 years ago
Yeah so? And your point is what?
(All but 1 of the drivers here in the top 11 was dead or retired anyway - the only exception being Schumi. So nothing could possibly have changed, except that Schumi may have moved up or down from 5th - let's be diplomatic then and leave him at 5th :)
mallamoozoo 2 years ago
5 world titles later and he MAY have moved up or down? In the coming years he won more WCs than any other driver and you think he only MAY have moved up. Haha sure boss.
Its a bit pathetic the way you sensor what comments will appear by the way.
samsemtex 2 years ago
That's 5 WC's with the best cars of all time and slave team-mates with their hands tied by contract- so they were meaningless results- that's why Schu's ranking doesnt change since this survey in 97. (As I've said before Schui fucked up by demanding these team-orders - the selfish bastard didnt contemplate the world's backlash against his demands for No 1 status- if he had played fair he may have won 4 or 5 WC's anyway and been regarded with genuine respect, instead of contempt for hollow stats.
mallamoozoo 2 years ago
haha? You think the 2000, 2001, 2003 Ferraris were as good as this years Brawn? So every world championship that has been won in the best/equal best car is now meaningless? Brilliant. That means basically every world chamionship ever won has been completely meaningless.
No driver has ever won a world championship in a bad car. In Senna's 3 championship years his team mate finished 2nd twice and 4th once. They must have been really shit cars. Haha 2 of them were in completely dominant cars!
samsemtex 2 years ago 2
00,01,03 Ferrari's were about as dominant as this year's Brawn is over Red Bull, and then with Schui's advantage of slave team-mates (which Brawn now admits was a mistake) then yeah he had it even easier than Button this year. And of course in 02 and 04 - it was like everyone but Ferrari was using an F3 car.
mallamoozoo 2 years ago
You obviously didnt watch the 2000, 2001 or 2003 seasons if you think those cars were anything like this years Brawn. This years Brawn is virtually unbeatable. Even Rubens who has been past it for the last 3 years is still competitive in it. Are you trying to say Rubens is still as good now as he was when he was at Ferrari? You cant really believe that can you?
Why was Sennas 91 title meaningful? He had a close to fastest car which was infinitely more reliable than Mansells?
samsemtex 2 years ago
91 McLaren reliable?
Senna lost 5 of 6 gears in Brazil, at Monaco (I think) after the race the fuel pump was hanging by a thread and about to fall off.. The alternator died in Canada cutting the engine, and at both Silverstone and Germany his mechanics underfueled his car and he ran dry and parked on the last lap.
Sure Williams had some gearbox problems early on, but it was a vastly superior car and so fast that even Patrese was sometimes faster than Prost and Senna!
mallamoozoo 2 years ago
The 00,01,03 Ferrari was the best car, though by a very slightly lesser margin than the 09 Brawn, but Schui having exclusive number 1 status of it more than makes up for the very slight difference in relative advantage over the 2nd best car (McLaren in '00,'01, Williams in '03, Red Bull in '09)
mallamoozoo 2 years ago
Rubens now is unleashed - at ferrai his hands were tied - so if anything he is BETTER now than he was then. So Button whooping Rubens means he may be even better than Schui. (Rubens himself says after teaming with them both, "Button is as talented as Schui, though not as consistent")
mallamoozoo 2 years ago
But you're almost right about one thing - almost every World Title is per se is meaningless - in half of them the better driver was beaten by a better car.
There are 3 exceptions in the past 22 years - Prost in 87, Senna in 90 and Senna in 91. So as far as I am concerned the true picture of relative achievements is measured by "Meaningful World Championships": Senna 2, Prost 1, Schui 0
mallamoozoo 2 years ago
Perfect Point. In my time You mean Prost in 86. The 2005 Mclaren was also the best car but less reliable than the renault. To me and always, the 1991 season was the most perfectly driven season by any driver in history. Senna virtually made no mistakes. Reliability or not, the Fw13 was a faster car than the Mclaren. And yes, usually the best car wins and not the best driver, if the car is close enough, the best driver will win, unless you have them in the same car...something Schuey didnt
dalebshelton 2 years ago 3
Has Schuemacher ever had a team mate that was world championship caliber outside of Piquest's last season? I terms of team mates, no one has had a more outstanding cast than Prost. Herbert, Vos, Barrichello and Irvine are the caliber of Prost or Berger.
dalebshelton 2 years ago 5
I'll go further malla: Ross Brawn strategy (and the improvised tactics on the race) were always organized to allow Schuey have a clear edge on his teammate. There were many races in which I believe Barrichello, Irvine or Massa had the possibility to still have a go, but suddenly, "something" happened, and strange fuel improvised tactics or different tyres compound were given to them, so as not to jeopardize Schuey's race..... A lack of respect to sport itself....
lucianoestivill 2 years ago 2
A quote from Eddie Irvine: "It's true, Ferrari can be very flexible with their strategy but - again - that is down to Schumacher's incredible pace.
"So when a McLaren pits, Schumacher is able to run for several more laps, open up the lead he needs, then come in for his stop - and return to the track in the lead.
samsemtex 2 years ago
..."That makes technical director Brawn come out looking like some kind of superstar. I'm sorry to shatter the illusion that many have, but he has little to do with Schuey's success.
"Take Schumacher out of the equation and what would Ferrari have won?"
Of course im sure you know better than the man who was his team mate for 4 years...
samsemtex 2 years ago
"Take Schumacher out of the equation and what would Ferrari have won?"
Hmm let see.... maybe about as much as Brawn is winning this year - ie. even more than Ferrari did!
GOTCHA !!!!!!! LOL
mallamoozoo 2 years ago
Haha sure man you keep believing that. This Honda rebadged as Brawn car is superior to anything Michael ever drove, perhaps with the exception of the 2004 Ferrari, and has been in development for 2 years. It might even be as good as Senna's 1988 McLaren.
Whats your point anyway? Thats still 6 other world titles.
samsemtex 2 years ago
The Honda/Brawn is the best car - but so were Schui's Ferraries in 2000,2001,2002,2003,2004 (when he won his 5 meaningless WC's). And at least Button is doing it on equal terms against the same guy that Schui demanded team-orders imposed on. So perhaps Schui wasn't even as good as Button - the picture looks worse for Schumi as time goes on - now that he has been gone quite a while the gloss is fading and people are starting to see the real substance - maybe he wasn't even top 5 of the greats?
mallamoozoo 2 years ago
Button hasnt been at Brawn for 6 years yet has he?! Capiche?
mallamoozoo 2 years ago
No but button has been in F1 for 9 years and has been beaten by team mates on 4 occasions so i think it is safe to say he isnt the driver schumacher was.
Barrichello was never restricted in qualifying or race pace at Ferrari. Schumacher got preferential strategy but Rubens was never even remotely close in the exact same equipment. And you know that.
I think Button is a very very good driver in a good car but when he has a bad car he is shit. Scumacher in a bad car was still brilliant.
samsemtex 2 years ago
Yes I agree. Button isn't really great - he's competent with some strong points but not complete - he is being flattered by a fantastic car- thats the problem with motorsport - drivers can win sometimes without being a complete package. I admit that however good Schu was or wasn't - he was consistent - only Senna and Schu were ALWAYS a threat, even with shit cars. No-one else ever was (Hamilton is proving in 09 to be another "needs a good car" winner.)
My point with Buttton is stats dont matter.
mallamoozoo 2 years ago
ie. just as button is winning everything and may win 17 GP in 2009- that doesn't make him as good as Schu, similarly Schu 5WC's in 2000- 2004 don't make him as good as Senna. Stats are affected by so many other factors than driver. And in Schu's case those other factors gave him privileges other drivers never even dreamed of- he was flattered by circumstance. None the less he was one of the greats- as i have said, had he not had such privileges he may still have won 4 WC and gained more respect.
mallamoozoo 2 years ago
I am often thinking about different ways to measure drivers' ability - as the usual statistical parameters are almost meaningless (the driver being only 20% factor in the results (unless all cars are identical - which rarely occurs even in go-karts)).
From day to day the skill set required by a driver changes (eg. wet day - dry day, or understeer - oversteer, or street circuit-speedway etc) Actually it can even manifest from corner to corner within a lap. Often a driver has few bogey corners.
mallamoozoo 2 years ago
We could develop a parameter for "Completeness" but it is difficult to quantify.
I can only think of calibrating a scale against a hypothetical perfect driver with 100 points.
Then I'd assign drivers a rating according to how much of the game they have covered to a near perfect standard.
I'd score something like this;
Senna at 99,
Schu at 80,
Mansell 60
some one-time World Champs (Raikkonen, Hamilton, Button?) at 40
GP winners (Berger, Coulthard) at 20
Seat Warmers (Kovalainnen etc) at 10
mallamoozoo 2 years ago
This is a crude model at this point but I like it as it more accurately correlates with driver talent than the primitive statistical measures of scores or even strikerates for wins, poles, WC's etc.
mallamoozoo 2 years ago
In your opinion, what would Juan Manuel Fangio's rating be?
I myself would say that he would definitely be between 95 - 100.
AndrewMooneyDesign 2 years ago
Somewhere above Schmacher
mallamoozoo 2 years ago
LMAO.... Please, thumb me up people, lol, I'm starting to get attacked by thumb down boys, lol.....
malla, we're waiting for another f your videos or channals, and go on with the debates, agreeing or not, on the F1 we like it best, the one of the 80's and early 90's, pre-Schumacher era, lol.... ;-)
lucianoestivill 2 years ago
Senna is the only driver to beat a 4 time champ in the history of F1 in the same car no team orders in 88.. in fact he easily had the measure of Prost..
Then some schumi fans always say Schumi beat Piquet... yeah when piquet was 38! older than when schumi retired!!
kouzouka 2 years ago 3
Agreed kazouka
89 cost Senna badly in terms of his apparent career success- without the horrendous bad luck with mechanical failures (and the disqual in japan) he should have been World Champ in 89- should have been 4 WC in a row (only done by Fangio prior to that).
And the Senna V Prost tale of the tape should have been Senna 4, Prost 3.
None of that matters to rational analysts, but mediocre intellects like Murray Walker are heavily swayed by "official" stats and it clouds their judgement.
mallamoozoo 2 years ago
I'm not sure malla, honestly. Even when Ayrton was marvellous, superb, I don't see why Prost wouldn't have been a deserved Champion in 1989. After all, He won it and not in Japan, He won it in the remaining 13/16 races He scored points. Machanical attrition existed not only for Senna but also for Prost, both had the same possibilities of having the same rate of mechanical problems, given the circumstance They were driving the same car. I'd change your "should have been" by a "could have been".
lucianoestivill 2 years ago
Look it the opposite way malla: imagine 1989 title was "robbed" to Senna, may I claim 1990 title was "robbed" to Prost? They came to the penultimate round almost under the same situation: Senna had to win in Suzuka 89 to have a chance (which He didn't) and Prost had to do the same in Suzuka 90 (which He didn't). Maybe we could change the titles, 89 for Senna and 90 for Prost!!! Again: Prost 4, Senna 3. Anyway, forget about stats because is misleading. Look at Schuey: 7 titles.... so what?
lucianoestivill 2 years ago
stefan bellof..RIGHTFULLY m ade the list..he totally dominated everything he ever drove...god i wish that accident never happened..
piro4351 2 years ago
Bellof is a good example of "We will never know". From all accounts - he was a pure racer with a Gilles Villeneuve attitude. Certainly it's possible he would have been a great - but we just didn't see enough of him.
Another example - in 1984 at Detroit - a flying wheel narrowly missed Senna's head. After he was killed in 94 i saw that again and thought "Well - at least it didnt happen in '84 or we'd never have known the greatest driver of all time during the following 10 years."
mallamoozoo 2 years ago
bellof was not faster than senna.. he tested for a f1 team with senna and another driver and out of the three Senna was of course fastest.. but its true that bellof was fast
kouzouka 2 years ago
Bellof, Senna, and another driver tested for a F1 team on the same day once. Naturally Senna came out on top, speed and technically so i don't think Bellof was better than senna
kouzouka 2 years ago 2
What tests kouzouka? When Ayrton tested a Williams in 83 or when He tested a McLaren in 83? Other car? If they tested different cars we can't compare time so, but what I remember is that Ayrton tested Rosberg's Williams and after the testing He had improved all times done by Rosberg in that circuit, by 1 second, in his 1st test!!! With McLaren was similar: Dennis told him sending signals on the pit wall: "lower!""lower!", but He went faster and faster, not even Dennis could believe it!!!
lucianoestivill 2 years ago
I think it may have been in a Brabham - Senna Bellof and Brundle all tested the same car on the same day.
Senna's engine blew and he demanded a second go where he was the fastest - Brundle was blown away not so much by Senna's speed but his audacity in DEMANDING another go when he was a virtual nobody !
mallamoozoo 2 years ago
But me might of be another jean Alesi.....
lazerpod66 2 years ago
Exactly - if Alesi had been killed in his first ferrari race after impressing greatly in the tyrell - everyone would have said he was one of the most promising drivers cut down early - but as we saw, he never delivered on the promise.
mallamoozoo 2 years ago
But in reality, he only had 1 good f1 race, sat out the second half on 84, and what did he do in 85 before the SPA accident??? I dunno, but I think that Bellof is rated way too high.
lazerpod66 2 years ago
I don't even rate his Monaco 84 GP as special - the car was non-turbo which in the wet is far more controllable, and Tyrell were later disqualified from the whole season for cheating with weight - he was probably underweight in Monaco too - and NOTHING improves speed like losing weight - especially in the wet - so in reality he had the perfect car for a wet race on a street circuit - light, agile and not an overwhelming amount of power.
mallamoozoo 2 years ago
Agree on Alesi malla: just look at his impressive race in USA 90 but his later development in 1991: with a sucking car and team, He did absolutely nothing. Only managed to outqualify teammate Prost in some races and even fought with him in some occasion, loosing almost always against him (He beat Prost in 4/16 races). F1 it's about "spectacular or so called "brave styles", but about skills focused on getting the results. This is a bussines, no time to waste in putting on a show. Go and WIN!!!
lucianoestivill 2 years ago
Beating prost 4 out of 16 is no mean feat - Alesi definitely had potential - but he squandered it - because talent isn't enough - a driver must also be smart and work hard to hone the talent.
mallamoozoo 2 years ago
Everytime we see spectacular driving styles, like the ones of Bellof, Arnoux, Alesi, Montoya, Gilles, Peterson, Senna, etc., we inclined ourselves to overrating them at first glance... But when you analise them carefully, you realised that "spectacular" styles means nothing by itself. Just look upon Ayrton: He became the Best once He matured enough to make his "spectacular" way disappear, He was not spectacular in 91 or 93, but got results against a stronger opposition. That really matters!!!
lucianoestivill 2 years ago
Well that is really my favorite subject- when racing karts- my buddy and I would spend hours talking about driving styles, vehicle set ups, just everything relating to technique and skill.
As experienced talent scouts know- REALLY fast drivers start ragged and fast (Villeneuve, Senna, Schui etc) and then become smooth and even faster, but drivers who start smooth and mediocre never become ULTRA fast (eg. Hill).
But Senna was already the fastest even in his 2nd year- already the polemeister!
mallamoozoo 2 years ago
in fact didn't Ayrton get pole for his first car race?
billabongodrum 2 years ago
I believe so - Formula Ford 1600 in 1981.
mallamoozoo 2 years ago
Senna wasnt just a great driver, he was an amazingly kind and generous person; moreso than Schumacher. He gave millions of dollars to children's charities and didnt even brag about it or anything for publicity, and people only found out after his death
simoncase 2 years ago
I definitely agree with you, Ayrton did alot for humanity and the fact he kept it secret shows how decent of a human being he was, I mean celebrities these days flaunt the fact they act charitable and give money to soothe their ego and actually convince themselves they are human and arent motivated by the millons they have, its just greed, they dont care about those who suffer...Ayrton however he was just amazing and totally felt the problems in mankind needed to addressed, what a man!
AyrtonSennaSempre 2 years ago
no doubt
connected1914 2 years ago
Ayrton Senna at the top, right where he needs to be! I mean Ayrton was literally part of the car, his mind, everything was in harmony with anything he drove and his statistics are incredible! I understand Murray thinks Schumi is the greatest & that is purely his opinion which I respect, but the buck definitely goes to the true Ayrton fans and F1 journalists, honchos who vote for Ayrton because he deserves the title, & only death stopped him from being on top today! thats just the way it is!
AyrtonSennaSempre 2 years ago
Death didn't stop him being on top - it stopped him being on top by so far that even ignorami would know it, but he already did enough in his time that the experts know what they saw and what he was - a giant - a gargantuan giant of the extreme art of Formula 1 race-car driving - the greatest there could possibly ever be.
mallamoozoo 2 years ago
ghehe... ownd(A) Senna #1 forever:D
xxboubaxx 2 years ago
schumacher was better than senna, statistically and ability wise.
piro4351 2 years ago
The vid, the mag, the facts, the experts, and I, say otherwise - Senna was better than Schui and everyone else, ever!
mallamoozoo 2 years ago
Its a fact Ayrton is the greatest, statistically & he still holds the world record for most consecutive pole positions and as race leader for the entire race in F1 history
I agree with what you say :)
AyrtonSennaSempre 2 years ago
Indeed - if you look at laps leading the race and not simply wins - Senna's stats are better than Schui's - Schui had far superior mechanical reliability (simply due to 21st century engineering technology) - Senna lost a hell of a lot of wins with mechanical failures whilst he was leading the race - Senna's car's broke down in about 25% of his races - compared to Schui's car breaking down in only about 5% of his races.
mallamoozoo 2 years ago
Hi malla! I was reading the postings and I said to myself: when you have a high rate mechanical attrition, it's time to ask yourself if you're not doing something wrong..... Ayrton started to lower his mechanical failures by the end of his career, I'd say, from 1990 on..... even finishing races with mechanical problems (Brazil 91, Imola 91, and several more). Prior to 1990 was another issue, with 1989 at the top: 1989 was a DISASTER for him..... The car broke, or He crashed....
lucianoestivill 2 years ago
When a backmarker has mechanical failures - it could be lack of driver skill, but with Senna - the most skillful driver of all time - a man described by John Watson as "it's as if he has 4 arms and 4 legs" of course that was never the case. I think Senna's huge number of mechanical failures in the first half of his career was simply low quality engineering - technology improves with time and from 1990 onwards cars were getting pretty reliable. By 2000 onwards, Schui's Ferraris were bulletproof.
mallamoozoo 2 years ago
Ayrton Senna is the best of the bests!!!!
chivajavo 3 years ago
It's not a freaking joke, 95% of Schumacher fans are all aged around 17 years old, I checked it out and they are COMPLETELY CLOSED to anything and any other drivers, have absolutely no opinions, man this is a disease!!!!Unreal, I feel sorry for their limited intelligence.
lazerpod66 3 years ago 4
Yes - Schumi really only has teen fans that claim he's is the bet ever (it's a scientific fact teenage brains haven't fully developed yet) and Murray Walker (who's love of the sport is great but he ain't much smarter than the average teenager.)
I liked Murray up until I was about 19 then started to realize I already knew more than him and became very disappointed with him - how could someone of his experience learn so little?
mallamoozoo 3 years ago
In regard to Murray, for whatever reason, He was (and I think He still is) too much of a Professor fanboy, lol, which is valid, OK, I LOVE Prost, you know, but He should be honest enough and recognize it!!! I guess He knew a lot about F1, but his problem is that He always tries to turn things into Prost's side, or even Schuey's side, I don't know if it's due to He really like them, or just because He feels some personal dislike on Senna....
lucianoestivill 3 years ago
I dont think he disliked Senna - he just couldn't understand Senna's stratospheric genius - too far above hi\s intelligence to comprehend - Murray identified more with the "working class" guys of Mansell, Schumacher etc. It's more to do with his personal values than his understanding of what a racing driver really is. To rate Schui number 1 of all time is final proof that Murray really has limited grasp on the subject.
mallamoozoo 3 years ago
ROFL malla, Murray did a lot of Top10 lists and He changes the placing of all of them as He pleases, Fangio nº1, Senna nº1, Schuey nº1, then Prost 2nd ahead of Senna (3rd), then Senna 2nd above Schuey (nº3) and Prost (nº4), etc. I respect his ratings as much as the ratings you or me can have according to our personal likes and deslikes, no problem at all, but you can't change your that much all the time! And don't forget: He loves Mansell, lol...
lucianoestivill 3 years ago 2
im 17 :P i love senna! :(
TuneViper 2 years ago
Senna and Prost were reported to use his french and brazilian media as a strong weapon to survive but, honestly, I never saw a driver that made such a sophisticated and clever use of his countryfellows journalists and media as Nigel. And it's valid, not all in F1 is about being the "fastest", this is a serious bussines and you have to manage this things if you want to survive. Nigel was damn good in marketing himself as a "national hero". "Me against the cruel world!" It worked! :-)
lucianoestivill 3 years ago
Some very good points there luciano.
I think Nigel's "Me against the world" attitude was not purely a marketing angle though- I think he genuinely held that attitude and rightly so- Senna and Prost had more god gifted talents- but noone worked harder than Nigel to get to F1- he had a bulldog tenacity to not let go of his goal. It was a long hard road for Nige, and who knows- maybe if he'd had more time on the track in his early years rather than working to pay, he may have been even better!
mallamoozoo 3 years ago
Talented as Senna was, he had the luxury of working hard in racing only (which to his credit he always acknowledged, unlike most rich kids who think it is a right).
But Nigel WORKED hard in regular life to even get there- which must have detracted from his racing repertoire- hence we speak of him being fast but not flexible and consistent like Senna and Prost but I am sure S and P had 2 to 10 times more laps under their belts when they got their F1 starts- who knows how good Nige COULD've been?
mallamoozoo 3 years ago
Interesting point of view malla... we all know it was very difficult for Nigel to come up there on an F1 car, and even before reaching F1 He had to risk even his financial prospects so as to cope with the situation of being part of racing, a bussines where money and marketing are at the top! But I guess he liked a little bit people think about him as "a good self-made man plenty of courage that battles against evil people"..... In any case, it's part of the game, and it's valid!!!
lucianoestivill 3 years ago
just my opinion...
to succeed in this crazy world of F1
you gotta be selfish
good lad Nigel
billabongodrum 2 years ago
It's tough driving on the Limit - to do that consistently you gotta really really want it, which is interpreted as selfishness. Motivation and selfishness are easily confused by outside observers.!
mallamoozoo 2 years ago
Mansell was an outstanding racer, hot and quick as the hell itself! But He was labeled as a non-inteligent man, which isn't true, specially on marketing himself. His typical boxing spectacles with Senna (quite often outside the track than inside the car), his whining on every teammate He had (as if all men in F1 were against him), his "shows" specially in UK (just remember one example: his kiss on the track where He overtook Piquet), were things that speak of his abilities on marketing....
lucianoestivill 3 years ago
In a sport like motoracing, so many things can alter a results, but in a sport like tennis, you are the absolute master of your fate, can't blame your shoes, nor the weather, nor the racket, so in that sport numbers DO COUNT. So that is why in f1, Schumacher's numbers are just that numbers....
lazerpod66 3 years ago 3
schumacher is a great champion, but there's a big difference between him and all the other champions including Ayrton. That difference is that most of schumacher 7 titles were won thanks to team orders, cheating, lets admit that Schumacher is the most "helped" driver of all times. Senna won all his world championships ALONE, competing with everything and everyone
francomanya 3 years ago 4
And Senna won the best among the best...
GeraArg 3 years ago 2
A typical Senna fan is: He is old enough to appreciate any f1 driver, and is capable to make the difference between how and with what he became great. Is always prepared to accept Senna's wrongdoings. Is willing to discuss the pros and cons no matter what the driver is. Has the maturity to accept the obvious fact that Senna was down right wreckless on his day WITHOUT attempting any lame cover up. Admires Schumacher's genious talent and awesome speed, hence, he is a logical fan.
lazerpod66 3 years ago 2
Excellent Jeepy your quote about "A typical Senna fan", bravo!. 100% agreement here, no need for further explanations, that's exactly how I consider myself to be, that way you explained.... Maybe I went a little bit further when I become a Senna-Prost" fan, lol, but being honest: I feel real enjoyment feeling this way, I can be happy when Senna wins and when Prost wins, lol. They were The Best in their era, I guess that's almost out of any serious discussion....... ;-)
lucianoestivill 3 years ago
Who is the best of all time is of course debatable, but I can't take this serious with Schumacher in 5th, he's either 1 or 2 NOT 5th.
TomZAm80 3 years ago
You can't take it seriously? It's the finding of 43 experts. So take it seriously and learn to think as deeply as they do. Do not be so influenced by the Schui marketing machine.
mallamoozoo 3 years ago
Schuey's marketing machine really existed (still exists!), but that machine isn't bigger than any other marketing machine. F1 is a real bussines, and marketing machines are like monsters that eat everything that come across their path... There were a lot of marketing machines (involving ALL these drivers in this Top 10), but there was one that always amazed me a lot: Nigel Mansell's marketing machine. It was a machine controlled by himself, which speaks of his intelligence on the matter...
lucianoestivill 3 years ago
I always think of it this way - a good paradigm that cuts through all the stats and bad luck and team-orders and unreliable cars etc etc - who would you choose to drive for your team if you were a team owner? Even better - who would you bet your house or even your life on?
I am sure when push comes to shove in that situation - even Schumi fanboys would capitulate and side with the invincible strength of the Senna!
mallamoozoo 3 years ago
Schumacher, Senna was too emotional, which is probably also why he's always been more popular.
TomZAm80 3 years ago
Nope - Senna was more popular because he was better - his popularity was due to his talent. In turn, that talent was born out of his extreme emotionality.
Horse before the cart son!
mallamoozoo 3 years ago
It says:
"No surprise really was it? So let's forget...that dreadful day at Imola...and celebrate the life and times of the greatest racing driver who ever lived! No fewer than 22 of the 43 member jury put the great Brazilian at the top of their lists, and rightly so. No-one in the sport's long history has dominated such capable team-mates as comprehensively as Senna has, nor ruled his era more imperiously.....
mallamoozoo 3 years ago
And while we all have our favourite Senna races, he will be best remembered for his freakishly rapid qualifying laps - his supremacy in this department underlined by a peerless record of 68 (sic) pole positions."
mallamoozoo 3 years ago
He shared some races (6) with Hakkinen and Hill, but they were just a few so We can hardly take them both seriously as an opposition, who in fact, They weren't at all, not only due to their status in the team, but because their qualities weren't high enough to resist Senna at his best. He would have eat them anyway.... They same counts for the teammates He had in England before reaching F1: compared with Senna, they were nothing.....
lucianoestivill 3 years ago
There's only one thing I don't agree buddy malla: the capable teammates Ayrton had. He had only one serious contender He had to face with inside the team, we all know who He was..... I don't rate Cecotto, Nakajima, Berger, Andretti (rofl), Dumfires,etc., as "capable" in the sense We are used to use the word "capable". Surely they were capable, but several steps behind him. One one of his teammates (in F1) put fierce resistance, the rest were virtually screwed up by Senna as if they didn't exist!
lucianoestivill 3 years ago
Yes - i am sure whoever wrote that (probably the editor of F1 Magazine) really was thinking just of Prost when he wrote that. But Berger was once considered the best of the rest behind Senna, Prost and Mansell - so Senna's 2nd best team-mate was better than even Schui's best team-mate. And the years with Prost and Berger account for 50% of Senna's career. Schui's team-mates weren't allowed to challenge him and they were not even great even if they were allowed to. Senna did it way tougher!
mallamoozoo 3 years ago
The frenchman was the man, yes, lol. Not because you or me say so, but because Ayrton himself stated clearly: "there wasn't a harder or a weaker opponent than Prost; due to circumstances, luck, etc., He was the rival". Quite a compliment! I like this vid (v=5wEYQjyxFTw&feature=channel_page) and what He says from 6:04 to 6:35 is more than clear... He doesn't pronounce Prost name, not even by chance (lol) but we all know He was talking about him.... And He was right...
lucianoestivill 3 years ago
Yes Prost was so good that even the Senna had to be at his best to win over Prost (the others Senna could beat half asleep).
mallamoozoo 3 years ago
And I read somewhere that Gordon Myrray, who worked with both said that Senna was much much more cerebral than Prost, mentally much stronger. I'm not saying that Prost wasd a weakling, but was a cut below Senna in that department.
lazerpod66 3 years ago
Yes mate - but we should not be too hard n Prost for that - Everyone was a cut below Senna in that department! That was basically where all Senna's power came from - his mental strength. (As Berger said; "His strength was mental - he could concentrate in such a way that he do work which was unbelievable." "He was in a different place, operating on a totally different level, not just 1 step but 2 steps ahead of the rest of us."
mallamoozoo 3 years ago
I don't know what is to be "more cerebral" but We could agree on being "stronger" on mental terms.... Now, that "mental strenght" sometimes took him to misleading conceptions of the responses He would recieve from his rivals. What happened with Mansell in Estoril 89 and Prost in Suzuka 89 is just an example. Being that strong, going for the lead or for the gap no matter what, did He really expected his rivals would offer a peaceful red carpet to his desires? ALL wanted to win, not only Ayrton...
lucianoestivill 3 years ago
We also have to take into account that Senna used to admire not only "Prost because of his results" but also "Mansell because of his determination". Let's give Nigel a credit because He deserves it. Now, I'd like to know what could have happened with a team "Mansell-Senna". Senna would have succeded, specially due to this: Prost, fast as He was, had to find another way "the Lauda way", to have a chance on him, but Nigel only had speed, He wasn't as "eclastic" as Prost. So: Senna would win...
lucianoestivill 3 years ago
Correct. Mansell had more bulldog determination than Prost, but not the finesse or skill. On his day Mansell could outrace anyone, but he was not "on his day" on a regular enough basis to match Senna or Prost over 16 races. (But neither could more than a few drivers in history manage to be competitive on a regular basis.)
I think an interesting team-mate pair would have been Mansell - Schumacher. They had comparable speed and Mansell would not accept bully tactics from anyone!
mallamoozoo 3 years ago
I agree on this about Mansell: as a raw speed driver, He was a hell of a racer. And we have to say that when He was on his day, even without Senna's superior speed or Prost's refinement, He could match (and beat them). In fact, there were times in which Mansell wanted to be the best, and He was the best. But in a long term, to be really a cut above, you need to be at your best at least 11 or 12 rounds per season, not 4 or 5. That's was the main difference, generally speaking. Nice racer indeed!
lucianoestivill 3 years ago
That book must have been from around early 1996
nitroboost8765 3 years ago