Post here all non technical related topics about Formula One. This includes race results, discussions, testing analysis etc. TV coverage and other personal questions should be in Off topic chat.
Personally find it hard to place Senna at the top of the list. While for speed he is the number 1, I think out of all the GOATs, he was the worst in building a season campaign for himself, due to driving on the absolute limit, with every duel being a do or die battle. In contrast, Alain was consistently the best at this department, and was in the championship fight from essentially the start of his career, until his final race.
Agreed. I think Senna was the fastest, but unfortunately his career hadn't gotten to the stage as Michael or Lewis, that was about developing a team around him. I wasnt watching back then, but just going by historical records he seemed to penomenon, but still a hired hand, more than prime motivator? Correct me If i am wrong here.
In the Patrick Head interview, he mentioned that Senna was a brilliant technical driver in the little they got to work together, they all just never got the chance for it to come to fruition for obvious reasons. He said he was probably the strongest of anyone he worked with, which would include Prost.
This isn’t fan wishes, this is right from the horses mouth.
28:00 for Prost, about a minute later for Senna.
And Patrick is spot on. Senna was both cerebral and clinical. He had the qualities of both Gilles and Lauda.
For 2013, he had by his own admission a very poor race in Spain, he lost a podium at Monaco for falling too far behind Rosberg and got undercut by the RB's, was eliminated in Q2 for 'driving like an idiot' at Monza, at Korea he struggled heavily with his tyres unlike his teammate, also made a mistake at the start at Japan which cost him a puncture.
Imo in 2013 Rosberg and Lewis was quite close. Lewis wasn't particularly close to being the best driver of that season, nor even the second best driver of the season. The team bosses rated him at 4.
Wasn't an off season to the majority of followers. You are the first person I have heard with that one! Minor mistakes but his driving was of a good standard. No embarrassments really.
Rosberg has always been close with Lewis. That was why he able to win in 2016.
I have never really put too much stock into driver ratings because they are based on guestimates more than anything. Nevertheless, Lewis usually is ranked in the top 5 in most of them. In 2013 there was nothing for him to fight for really it was mostlty about getting familiar with the team.
I said after 2011 that was his worst season in F1, him and Rosberg were basically neck and neck with nothing between them.
Ranking Hamilton's Mclaren seasons is a nightmare.
You do realise that Alonso was on average slightly faster than Hamilton in qualifying in 2007.
I don't know where the myth comes from that Alonso is not a fast qualifier from when he's one of the best ever at it.
Alonso was just under a tenth faster than Hamilton in Q2 over the season.
I think it was something like 0.084, correct me if I'm wrong.
You cannot be faster than someone by average. Speed is based absolutely on a number of events basis and how wide a gap at that event. Hamilton was a rookie, he had no business being as fast as 2 X DEFENDING WDC teammate, but he was.
Hamilton beat Alonso in Qualify 9:8
Also to be fair to Alonso i even counted Q2 sessions and combined the total qualifying sessions as 34.
Alonso had 17 and Hamilton had 16, there was one Q3 where Alonso did not start (France)but Hamilton was on form so would have beaten him anyway.
It was very close; and yes in the beginning of the season Alonso was quicker. But come on now, he was driving against a rookie. You want to give Alonso speed credits for joining a new team ferrari, but not want to give Lewis Rookie credits for joining the pinnacle of motorsport.
Of course you can over a season hence the comparisons with teammates.
Of course there was only one season to sample between them which is a massive shame.
You do realise that Alonso was on average slightly faster than Hamilton in qualifying in 2007.
I don't know where the myth comes from that Alonso is not a fast qualifier from when he's one of the best ever at it.
Alonso was just under a tenth faster than Hamilton in Q2 over the season.
I think it was something like 0.084, correct me if I'm wrong.
You cannot be faster than someone by average. Speed is based absolutely on a number of events basis and how wide a gap at that event. Hamilton was a rookie, he had no business being as fast as 2 X DEFENDING WDC teammate, but he was.
Hamilton beat Alonso in Qualify 9:8
Also to be fair to Alonso i even counted Q2 sessions and combined the total qualifying sessions as 34.
Alonso had 17 and Hamilton had 16, there was one Q3 where Alonso did not start (France)but Hamilton was on form so would have beaten him anyway.
It was very close; and yes in the beginning of the season Alonso was quicker. But come on now, he was driving against a rookie. You want to give Alonso speed credits for joining a new team ferrari, but not want to give Lewis Rookie credits for joining the pinnacle of motorsport.
Of course you can over a season hence the comparisons with teammates.
Of course there was only one season to sample between them which is a massive shame.
And that was a season where FIA had to put inspectors in Alonso's garage to ensure equal treatment, once Alonso went rogue. It's hard to say if Alonso got everything Hamilton got at McLaren under those circumstances.
Here's another take from Mark Huges on how Alonso's team mates fared against him. This is not about how many times he outqualified, but this is an average of laptime difference in head to head qualifying across seasons.
And that was a season where FIA had to put inspectors in Alonso's garage to ensure equal treatment, once Alonso went rogue. It's hard to say if Alonso got everything Hamilton got at McLaren under those circumstances.
Marc Priestley who was a mechanic at McLaren at that time said most of the garage wanted to side with Alonso. At that time they did not know who Hamilton was and had doubts over the boy who had just joined their team to suddenly replace the dependable Pedro de la Rosa.
Sometimes I wonder if Alonso claiming that the team was siding with Hamilton was just an excuse on his part for not dominating his rookie teammate.
And that was a season where FIA had to put inspectors in Alonso's garage to ensure equal treatment, once Alonso went rogue. It's hard to say if Alonso got everything Hamilton got at McLaren under those circumstances.
Marc Priestley who was a mechanic at McLaren at that time said most of the garage wanted to side with Alonso. At that time they did not know who Hamilton was and had doubts over the boy who had just joined their team to suddenly replace the dependable Pedro de la Rosa.
Sometimes I wonder if Alonso claiming that the team was siding with Hamilton was just an excuse on his part for not dominating his rookie teammate.
Think through this. There were obviously two garages. One that was on Hamilton's side, which was excited that they had a sensational new talent and performing to the level of Alonso. The other would obviously be happy to see Alonso surge ahead and naturally each garage, will put their full faith in their driver. It's not the garage Mechanics who would possess all the data. Management and Engineers at track, People at the factory base who put together that data to device strategies and setups were all under the control of Ron, who was against Alonso in that saga.
Because of one driver, Ron had to shell out a $100 million fine and lose all the team points and had no chance at the WCC. They could have only fight for WDC in those scenarios and you can easily bet who Ron wanted to win under those circumstances. With pretty much the entire organization feeling the disappointment of not being contenders for WCC and had to face the penalty of $100 million fine, who would they have wanted to win the WDC?
2007 was a skewed year to be considered for a legitimate comparison of performance between those two drivers.
And that was a season where FIA had to put inspectors in Alonso's garage to ensure equal treatment, once Alonso went rogue. It's hard to say if Alonso got everything Hamilton got at McLaren under those circumstances.
Marc Priestley who was a mechanic at McLaren at that time said most of the garage wanted to side with Alonso. At that time they did not know who Hamilton was and had doubts over the boy who had just joined their team to suddenly replace the dependable Pedro de la Rosa.
Sometimes I wonder if Alonso claiming that the team was siding with Hamilton was just an excuse on his part for not dominating his rookie teammate.
Think through this. There were obviously two garages. One that was on Hamilton's side, which was excited that they had a sensational new talent and performing to the level of Alonso. The other would obviously be happy to see Alonso surge ahead and naturally each garage, will put their full faith in their driver. It's not the garage Mechanics who would possess all the data. Management and Engineers at track, People at the factory base who put together that data to device strategies and setups were all under the control of Ron, who was against Alonso in that saga.
Because of one driver, Ron had to shell out a $100 million fine and lose all the team points and had no chance at the WCC. They could have only fight for WDC in those scenarios and you can easily bet who Ron wanted to win under those circumstances. With pretty much the entire organization feeling the disappointment of not being contenders for WCC and had to face the penalty of $100 million fine, who would they have wanted to win the WDC?
2007 was a skewed year to be considered for a legitimate comparison of performance between those two drivers.
Yes but what I am saying was, none of the mechanics wanted to be on Hamilton's side. They all wanted (were excited to be) working on Alonso's side of the garage.
But you are right, the management could definitely take sides, but did they do? I think they only started taking a side after the Spygate fiasco. Even then, Hamilton and Alonso were neck on neck IIRC already.
Agreed. I think Senna was the fastest, but unfortunately his career hadn't gotten to the stage as Michael or Lewis, that was about developing a team around him. I wasnt watching back then, but just going by historical records he seemed to penomenon, but still a hired hand, more than prime motivator? Correct me If i am wrong here.
In the Patrick Head interview, he mentioned that Senna was a brilliant technical driver in the little they got to work together, they all just never got the chance for it to come to fruition for obvious reasons. He said he was probably the strongest of anyone he worked with, which would include Prost.
This isn’t fan wishes, this is right from the horses mouth.
28:00 for Prost, about a minute later for Senna.
I am not sure if people want to read his comments to suit a certain desire. He said, his favorite was Alan Jones due to a variety of reasons.
He said, "we had a few drivers, who thought they understood engineering" in a more sarcastic way.
He then spoke about Prost with more respect and said, probably his understanding of the cars came with experience, which happens with most drivers. Prost was angry for most part in 1993 as that FW14 was anything that Prost had ever driven due to it's active suspension and his past experience became useless in terms of adjusting the behavior of the car.
He said, Senna was more methodical in the short time they worked with him and got a feeling that he probably could have proved to be more technical in nature. It didn't happen though. You feel more sympathy in Patrick's words there than facts, which was natural.
He also talked about his experience with Nigel for 1992 and that was very enlightening as how his feedback changed the car and the car was around 3 seconds quicker! He spoke at length about Nigel's ability to maneuver car quickly.
Drivers aren't engineers and very good engineers would always think the drivers' technical knowledge is just good enough to scratch the surface, like Patrick said. Some drivers pick up setting up of car well than others and that doesn't necessarily make them "technical or engineering minded". It baffles me when more credit is given to drivers' non-driving technical abilities than to give it to the engineers who understand what driver communicates to them in lay man engineering terms, but then bring actual engineering solutions to meet those needs.
What about the role of Michael’s team-mates at Ferrari – Eddie Irvine, Rubens Barrichello, Felipe Massa – and controversial races like the 2002 Austrian GP, when Barrichello reluctantly obeyed an order to move aside and allow Schumacher to win?
“The only contractual advantage Michael ever had over his team-mate was that he had first call on the spare car, and because of rule changes the spare car has not been an issue in recent years. But we would always take a decision in a race that we felt was best for Ferrari. Those decisions tended to favour Michael, because he was in the best position to win the championship – but it was never a case of Michael is the No 1 driver, so he has to get this or that.
“We had some difficult times with Rubens, who gave Michael quite a hard time competitively during his six seasons with us. If Rubens had been 20 points ahead of Michael in the championship, it would have been logical for all the strategy decisions to favour him. But it never occurred.
“That race in Austria caused a furore. But you have to remember that at that stage in the championship Michael had 44 points to Rubens’ six points, and of course we wanted to maximise Michael’s chances of the title. Championships have been lost in the past by a single point.We asked Rubens several laps before the end to concede position, but he wouldn’t until the last few hundred metres. These things are all discussed beforehand in the calm of the motorhome, so Rubens knew the score.
“But he’s a passionate guy, he was leading the race, and I can understand how he felt. Three races later (by which time Schumacher’s championship was almost, but not quite, clinched) we let Rubens lead Michael home in Germany.”
I remember some pages back, @Just_a_fan had snubbed the fact that it was Schumacher who brought Ross Brawn to Ferrari.
“Then I had my own problems with Benetton. At the end of 1995 I’d agreed to stay, on condition that I got total responsibility over the whole engineering side. Flavio agreed to that, but ultimately he didn’t implement it. F1 is pretty incestuous, and Michael got to hear I wasn’t happy. At the same time, he wasn’t happy with the technical structure at Ferrari either. Just before Monaco in 1996 I got a call from Willi Weber, asking if I’d like a chat. That’s how it started.”
Continuing on this... Ferrari even wanted to fire Jean Todt in 1996! Schumacher put his step down and retained Todt. So whoever that says, Schumacher didn't play a role in building that team of his, should stand corrected.
Jean Todt reveals Michael Schumacher saved his Ferrari career
However, it would have been different but for Schumacher’s intervention.
“It was during the 1996 season after we had a few retirements that there was pressure on me to leave,” explains Todt, 74.
“But Michael said ‘if Jean leaves I leave’. They did not want him to leave. They cared much less for me but Michael made his comments clear so I stayed.”
Two more to go. Nurburgring would be an appropriate place to beat it. I wonder if Michael watches the races? Lewis should pay tribute when gets there.
He'll say something appropriate, no doubt. It'll probably be "I can't believe it, never expected to do it" that sort of thing. And then something about Michael's legacy in the sport. That kind of thing.
If you are more fortunate than others, build a larger table not a taller fence.
Two more to go. Nurburgring would be an appropriate place to beat it. I wonder if Michael watches the races? Lewis should pay tribute when gets there.
He'll say something appropriate, no doubt. It'll probably be "I can't believe it, never expected to do it" that sort of thing. And then something about Michael's legacy in the sport. That kind of thing.
The Senna pole record was a tearjerker, I'm sure F1 will see another brilliant moment like that one, it will be part of the history of the sport.
