i dont no wtf u guys r trying to say,all i no in 1991 senna did the same lap time with stick shift....and notice,this is not a top speed track,its more a drivers track like montecarlo....anyway,bennetons engine was more powerful than sennas car, they were both ford v8's,but benneton was the main train for ford... the mclaren was slower comparing 2 williams from 1991...
i believe Prost was right to do so, he named Senna for McLaren from the beginning, then they fought there, and he left the best car then (The McLaren Honda) for Senna,
do u expect him to open his arms to senna again on williams to have more troubles??!!
at 38 I believe that Prost had had is battles and was not willing to put in the effort or the fight anymore, so I do agree in some point. Was it important enough for him to go through all that again. I agree no. If He he could look into the future and see what was going to happen, I think He would have stayed. But fate step in and their history ended In San Marino
Williams wasn't superior on Adelaide 93. Again, Maclaren V8 Ford engine was suitable on that track, and active suspensions weren't important that day, I dare to say Alain and Ayrton had a similar competitive car that day.... Ayrton demonstrated he could beat Alain with an almost equal car, but Alain was on his las GP, we couldn't expect he was going for the victory that day. He was more focused on finishing the race and go to podium for the last time rather than beating Ayrton.........
Watching the lap, it seems as the FW15 was not riding firmly over the track bumps, the car jumping through the course.
At the end of 1993 many teams (specially Benetton) were trying "non electronics" cars bearing in mind the new regulations for 1994. If Williams tried that in Adelaida, throwing away active suspensions surely must have left them one step behind the other cars that weren´t as good "electronic cars" as the FW15s.
There is the idea of the Williams having been superior in ALL the 1993 races, but we can´t be sure of the problems that "computerized" car faced. Wet races seems to have been a problem for its active suspensions, turning the cars unstable.
Complete nonsense. The Williams fastest laps demonstrated it was much faster. McLaren wan't even the 2nd best car, Benetton was (with it's better ford HBVIII engines).
The only difference in this race compared to earlier in the season was that instead of being 2 seconds a lap faster the Wililams was around 1 second a lap faster and Hill and Prost weren't use to actually racing after Taxi driving for the entire season.
I wouldn't say it's nonsense: in any case, if it's nonsense, explain me why Prost easily 1993 title while Ayrton had accidents in 3 out of 3 races. Was it that good??? Don't tell me the "cliché" about "electronics" and that crap: real data... In last part of 93, McLaren got closer to Williams. Some months later, it was worse: Williams was impossible to drive by 94...
If you trying to rise the image of your idol Senna (the same idol I have) you're wrong in the procedure. Senna won because He was THE BEST and because HIS CAR WAS GOOD that day, OK??? Investigate a little bit more on the issue, and contact me if you want, feel free to send me messages so I can develop or improve some info... Good Luck...
The Williams was faster than the McLaren in this race, that is the only fact. Hill and Prost both had faster laps than Senna and should have won, they had the better car.
I don't agree, just my point of view. The fastest lap by Hill means nothing since Hill had a go by the end of the race (preserving tyres). So He had a faster car, even faster than Prost's (don't forget Hill even attacked on Prost in final laps.) Prost and Senna pushed harder, so their tyres weren't as good as Damon's....
If Prost managed to be as fast, and from lap 0 to lap 25 faster, than Senna, on equal cars in Suzuka 89, it's because Prost is fast enough to take advantage of a fast car. Simply, if Williams had been faster than McLaren that day, Prost would have been the fastest...... If it didn't happen, it must be due to the car wasn't faster than McLaren....
What relevance does one race like Suzuka 89 have when you ignore all the others races when Senna was faster than Prost from 88-89. And by the way Senna caught Prost in Suzuka/
Back to Adelaide 1993, Hakkinen was in the other McLaren and he was a much faster driver than Hill but was easily beaten by both William cars and Schumacher's Benetton before he retired. That proved that McLaren was not the best car, otherwise Mikka would at the least be troubling the Williams, not struggling in 5th place.
LeonWgner, if you say so.... it must be that way..... LOL.... Surely truth belongs to you, so many thanks for your "kind" and illuminating knowledge... Don't disturb me with more and more fanboy quotes anymore, please. On technical or sporting matters, which is my speciality, feel free to do it, you'll be kindly welcome. For "Senna widows" approach on the matter, I'd prefer you to refrain, if you don't mind. Many Thanks. Your Sincerely. Luciano.
You are a prost fanboy, and according to you Prost can't lose in the best car, so you make up excuses when he does. And by the way I am a Schumacher fan not a Senna fan, I am not biased towards either. And Schumacher lost also when he had the best car, like Spa 2004 when Kimi beat him, you need to be less biased just because you love Prost.
I want you to clarify this: I WAS, I AM, and I WILL ALWAYS BE, a FAN of AYRTON SENNA. I don't mind if you like it or not, if your a another Schumacher girlfriend, it's your problem kid, not mine. Get a life and don't disturb me again.... By the way, I have to make you open your noob eyes: it doesn't matter if you like Senna, Prost, or whoever, but for your information, Alain Prost was a TRULY EXCEPTIONAL DRIVER and SUPER CHAMPION... From a Senna fan to The Professor: RESPECT!!! MERCI ALAIN!!!
LOL, surely, if you was born 45 years old at least... While you "watched" TV, I made automotive engineering, professional motorsport and somehow F1 (but it's another story) my way of living... Feel free of thinking what you think "the correct2 thing is, don't involve me in your internal mental fights and obvlibion... All Over...
That's true; in fact, FW15C wasn't good in the wet, and in fact had a very unreliable clutch. Anyway Alain didn't contributed too much for it, since he made really bad starts along the season, and in wet tracks he was usually very conservative, except from Imola, in which he had to go for it since the pressure on him was very high after Brazil and Donington Park "debacles".... in which Alain made too many mistakes.... But Williams wans't good in Adelaide at all.... That was a McLaren race...
@YRHDB, Williams was still well superior in 93. That's the overall picture. In some races it may have been that Williams wasn't quite dominant, but no more than that. Senna got 5 wins that year, that was purely down to his excellence that year.
In Adelaide, Senna was superior and Suzuka [2nd. in pole in 93] too many times. In the Williams pit in boths races does not comment about a poor performance. The Mclaren was near 1.5s slow than McLaren that was consistent 3th or 4th in pole times. No excuse. The Williams was superb in 1992 and 1993.
Well...in Adelaide 93 McLaren wasn't inferior at all, Williams never worked propperly that week end, particulary on the bumps (inspite the active suspension). With a faster car Prost outqualified Senna all the other 15 times that year.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Hill who was crusing had the fastest lap of the race nearly 1 second faster than Senna. The Williams was far superior, Senna would have won the race be a huge margin in the Williams.
Hakkinen in the other McLaren was blown away by both Wiliams.
Not on a street circuit. He also lost the previous race in Suzuka with a ridiculous car advantage.(His fastest lap was 2 seconds faster than the rest.)
Is that Alan Jones co-commentating?
wks1978 4 months ago
i dont no wtf u guys r trying to say,all i no in 1991 senna did the same lap time with stick shift....and notice,this is not a top speed track,its more a drivers track like montecarlo....anyway,bennetons engine was more powerful than sennas car, they were both ford v8's,but benneton was the main train for ford... the mclaren was slower comparing 2 williams from 1991...
REVs99 2 years ago
this was Ayrton Senna's only pole position of 1993
hmdwgf 2 years ago 2
Comment removed
kingpetok90 2 years ago
damn F1 went fast those days....
rapperzondernaam 2 years ago 3
@rapperzondernaam It's faster today actually.
rvind92g 3 months ago
@rvind92g I mean cornering speed. Looks like so much more grip..
rapperzondernaam 3 months ago
Merci Alain Prost,the best driver f1,no doubt
PROST is the great of the greats
AProst 3 years ago 7
This comment has received too many negative votes show
IS that why he was scare to have Senna as a team mate in 93
dalebshelton 3 years ago
i believe Prost was right to do so, he named Senna for McLaren from the beginning, then they fought there, and he left the best car then (The McLaren Honda) for Senna,
do u expect him to open his arms to senna again on williams to have more troubles??!!
Elgamed1980 3 years ago 7
at 38 I believe that Prost had had is battles and was not willing to put in the effort or the fight anymore, so I do agree in some point. Was it important enough for him to go through all that again. I agree no. If He he could look into the future and see what was going to happen, I think He would have stayed. But fate step in and their history ended In San Marino
dalebshelton 3 years ago 6
@dalebshelton but if you say Prost walked away from the McLaren battle... do you still value Prost as much as Senna after that realization?
Arska777999 1 year ago
@Arska777999 Not even close.
dalebshelton 1 year ago
As if Prost wouldnt try and win his last GP!!
His a racer not a ballroom dancer !
He couldnt compete with Senna ALL weekend at this race meeting.
To say he was more focused on finshing and geting a podium on his last race instead of going for a win is a load of RUBBISH.
There was no way in the world he was going to beat Senna that weekend !!!
MAZ78726B 3 years ago 4
Williams wasn't superior on Adelaide 93. Again, Maclaren V8 Ford engine was suitable on that track, and active suspensions weren't important that day, I dare to say Alain and Ayrton had a similar competitive car that day.... Ayrton demonstrated he could beat Alain with an almost equal car, but Alain was on his las GP, we couldn't expect he was going for the victory that day. He was more focused on finishing the race and go to podium for the last time rather than beating Ayrton.........
lucianoestivill 3 years ago
McLaren used also a active suspension car in 1993
Babelsberger82 3 years ago
Watching the lap, it seems as the FW15 was not riding firmly over the track bumps, the car jumping through the course.
At the end of 1993 many teams (specially Benetton) were trying "non electronics" cars bearing in mind the new regulations for 1994. If Williams tried that in Adelaida, throwing away active suspensions surely must have left them one step behind the other cars that weren´t as good "electronic cars" as the FW15s.
YRHDB 4 years ago 6
Senna was simply amazing in qualifying, there has been nobody yet who could match him in quali given an equal car imo.
Prost was an extremely smooth and quick driver though, capable of matching Senna in races on his day.
PiNInFarina18 4 years ago 13
@PiNInFarina18
True that. He was somehow so real and magic. Miraculiar Senna.
MeBest777 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I just cannot believe how good Senna was in qualifying.
In a much more inferior car, and he beat him by over 1 second.
Astonishing, he made Prost look like a rookie, but Prost is one of the greats!
SennaAlonso 4 years ago
Williams wasn't superior that say, SennaAlonso friend. McLaren was good that day....
lucianoestivill 3 years ago 3
There is the idea of the Williams having been superior in ALL the 1993 races, but we can´t be sure of the problems that "computerized" car faced. Wet races seems to have been a problem for its active suspensions, turning the cars unstable.
YRHDB 4 years ago 13
This has been flagged as spam show
Senna would have had an even faster pole time in the Williams. Williams fastest lap in the race was 7 tenths quicker than the next non Williams car.
Edeltraut3 4 years ago
No Edeltraut3, Williams was inferior in Adelaide that weekend, no way...
lucianoestivill 4 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Complete nonsense. The Williams fastest laps demonstrated it was much faster. McLaren wan't even the 2nd best car, Benetton was (with it's better ford HBVIII engines).
The only difference in this race compared to earlier in the season was that instead of being 2 seconds a lap faster the Wililams was around 1 second a lap faster and Hill and Prost weren't use to actually racing after Taxi driving for the entire season.
LeonWgner 3 years ago
I wouldn't say it's nonsense: in any case, if it's nonsense, explain me why Prost easily 1993 title while Ayrton had accidents in 3 out of 3 races. Was it that good??? Don't tell me the "cliché" about "electronics" and that crap: real data... In last part of 93, McLaren got closer to Williams. Some months later, it was worse: Williams was impossible to drive by 94...
lucianoestivill 3 years ago
If you trying to rise the image of your idol Senna (the same idol I have) you're wrong in the procedure. Senna won because He was THE BEST and because HIS CAR WAS GOOD that day, OK??? Investigate a little bit more on the issue, and contact me if you want, feel free to send me messages so I can develop or improve some info... Good Luck...
lucianoestivill 3 years ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
The Williams was faster than the McLaren in this race, that is the only fact. Hill and Prost both had faster laps than Senna and should have won, they had the better car.
LeonWgner 3 years ago
I don't agree, just my point of view. The fastest lap by Hill means nothing since Hill had a go by the end of the race (preserving tyres). So He had a faster car, even faster than Prost's (don't forget Hill even attacked on Prost in final laps.) Prost and Senna pushed harder, so their tyres weren't as good as Damon's....
lucianoestivill 3 years ago 3
If Prost managed to be as fast, and from lap 0 to lap 25 faster, than Senna, on equal cars in Suzuka 89, it's because Prost is fast enough to take advantage of a fast car. Simply, if Williams had been faster than McLaren that day, Prost would have been the fastest...... If it didn't happen, it must be due to the car wasn't faster than McLaren....
lucianoestivill 3 years ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
What relevance does one race like Suzuka 89 have when you ignore all the others races when Senna was faster than Prost from 88-89. And by the way Senna caught Prost in Suzuka/
Back to Adelaide 1993, Hakkinen was in the other McLaren and he was a much faster driver than Hill but was easily beaten by both William cars and Schumacher's Benetton before he retired. That proved that McLaren was not the best car, otherwise Mikka would at the least be troubling the Williams, not struggling in 5th place.
LeonWgner 3 years ago
LeonWgner, if you say so.... it must be that way..... LOL.... Surely truth belongs to you, so many thanks for your "kind" and illuminating knowledge... Don't disturb me with more and more fanboy quotes anymore, please. On technical or sporting matters, which is my speciality, feel free to do it, you'll be kindly welcome. For "Senna widows" approach on the matter, I'd prefer you to refrain, if you don't mind. Many Thanks. Your Sincerely. Luciano.
lucianoestivill 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You are a prost fanboy, and according to you Prost can't lose in the best car, so you make up excuses when he does. And by the way I am a Schumacher fan not a Senna fan, I am not biased towards either. And Schumacher lost also when he had the best car, like Spa 2004 when Kimi beat him, you need to be less biased just because you love Prost.
LeonWgner 3 years ago
I want you to clarify this: I WAS, I AM, and I WILL ALWAYS BE, a FAN of AYRTON SENNA. I don't mind if you like it or not, if your a another Schumacher girlfriend, it's your problem kid, not mine. Get a life and don't disturb me again.... By the way, I have to make you open your noob eyes: it doesn't matter if you like Senna, Prost, or whoever, but for your information, Alain Prost was a TRULY EXCEPTIONAL DRIVER and SUPER CHAMPION... From a Senna fan to The Professor: RESPECT!!! MERCI ALAIN!!!
lucianoestivill 3 years ago 7
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I was watching F1 before you were born. Senna beat Prost in this race despite driving a slower McLaren. end of discussion. Period.
LeonWgner 3 years ago
LOL, surely, if you was born 45 years old at least... While you "watched" TV, I made automotive engineering, professional motorsport and somehow F1 (but it's another story) my way of living... Feel free of thinking what you think "the correct2 thing is, don't involve me in your internal mental fights and obvlibion... All Over...
lucianoestivill 3 years ago
That's true; in fact, FW15C wasn't good in the wet, and in fact had a very unreliable clutch. Anyway Alain didn't contributed too much for it, since he made really bad starts along the season, and in wet tracks he was usually very conservative, except from Imola, in which he had to go for it since the pressure on him was very high after Brazil and Donington Park "debacles".... in which Alain made too many mistakes.... But Williams wans't good in Adelaide at all.... That was a McLaren race...
lucianoestivill 4 years ago
@YRHDB, Williams was still well superior in 93. That's the overall picture. In some races it may have been that Williams wasn't quite dominant, but no more than that. Senna got 5 wins that year, that was purely down to his excellence that year.
Arska777999 1 year ago
In Adelaide, Senna was superior and Suzuka [2nd. in pole in 93] too many times. In the Williams pit in boths races does not comment about a poor performance. The Mclaren was near 1.5s slow than McLaren that was consistent 3th or 4th in pole times. No excuse. The Williams was superb in 1992 and 1993.
joseavs 4 years ago
Senna with inferior car beat Prost in the pole and win his last race. The pole master, no doubt.
joseavs 4 years ago
Well...in Adelaide 93 McLaren wasn't inferior at all, Williams never worked propperly that week end, particulary on the bumps (inspite the active suspension). With a faster car Prost outqualified Senna all the other 15 times that year.
Copse75 4 years ago 6
True. Also the previous year Senna had been able to keep up with Mansell before they collided.
Also Prost was driving in his last race and had already won the championship so he wasn't really driving all that hard.
Underscrogman 4 years ago 5
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Hill who was crusing had the fastest lap of the race nearly 1 second faster than Senna. The Williams was far superior, Senna would have won the race be a huge margin in the Williams.
Hakkinen in the other McLaren was blown away by both Wiliams.
LeonWgner 4 years ago
I don't think the Williams was "far superior". If that had been so, Prost would have won the race easily.
Underscrogman 4 years ago 7
This has been flagged as spam show
Not on a street circuit. He also lost the previous race in Suzuka with a ridiculous car advantage.(His fastest lap was 2 seconds faster than the rest.)
LeonWgner 4 years ago
Japan was partly wet, though. Prost was only faster when the track dried out.
Underscrogman 4 years ago