Senna over rated
Discussion
I wouldn't call him over rated exactly, but I think I know what you mean. I think his death has erased a lot of the things he did wrong and shone a light on the things he did right. As untimely death often does. He also never had the decline, the failed come back or the unsuccessful forays into team management that have taken the shine off other multiple WDCs.
He was blindingly fast and often extraordinary in the wet, but he did make mistakes too. And he was ruthless as most champions are.
There are some people who over rate him and I'm sure romanticise him because of his early death, but there's no doubt that he was a rare talent who deserves to be remembered as an all time great.
He was blindingly fast and often extraordinary in the wet, but he did make mistakes too. And he was ruthless as most champions are.
There are some people who over rate him and I'm sure romanticise him because of his early death, but there's no doubt that he was a rare talent who deserves to be remembered as an all time great.
AJS- said:
I wouldn't call him over rated exactly, but I think I know what you mean. I think his death has erased a lot of the things he did wrong and shone a light on the things he did right. As untimely death often does. He also never had the decline, the failed come back or the unsuccessful forays into team management that have taken the shine off other multiple WDCs.
He was blindingly fast and often extraordinary in the wet, but he did make mistakes too. And he was ruthless as most champions are.
There are some people who over rate him and I'm sure romanticise him because of his early death, but there's no doubt that he was a rare talent who deserves to be remembered as an all time great.
I agree with this. I also think that this topic seems to be coming up a lot more often since that Senna movie, which really hasn't helped to balance the legacy.He was blindingly fast and often extraordinary in the wet, but he did make mistakes too. And he was ruthless as most champions are.
There are some people who over rate him and I'm sure romanticise him because of his early death, but there's no doubt that he was a rare talent who deserves to be remembered as an all time great.
v8250 said:
...you see in addition to the likes of Moss, Prost, Schumacher, Fangio, Nuvolari, Mansell [yes Mansell!], Lauda, Reuterman, Clark, Stewart, Ireland, Scott-Brown, Fittipaldi et al...there were men who 'knew' the difference between a great F1 driver...and the greatest. If you were to get Murray, DSJ, and Sid Watkins all in the same room at the same time they'd all give you one name...the one who'd have a semi-out-of-body experience when in the zone; Ayrton Senna.
Not sure Murray would give the name of Senna as the greatest, I think he has that as either Moss or Fangio. Not sure about DSJ either.Eric Mc said:
DSJ certainly was massively impressed by him. Not so much by his winning but by his total commitment in certain corners and the rather unusual way he set up a car through a corner using odd throttle effects.
I know DSJ thought Senna was the best at the time but as someone who would have been close to the likes of Fangio, Moss and Clark I would question whether he thought AS was the best overall. marshall100 said:
Go away and watch the pole lap round Monaco from 1988. Yes, that's right, he beat his TEAM-MATE in the SAME car by almost one and a half seconds.
I don't get too excited by that. We don't know what Prost was trying to do at the same time, but we know he used to concentrate on race set-up far more so that he had the best possible car for the day when the points were doled out.heebeegeetee said:
marshall100 said:
Go away and watch the pole lap round Monaco from 1988. Yes, that's right, he beat his TEAM-MATE in the SAME car by almost one and a half seconds.
I don't get too excited by that. We don't know what Prost was trying to do at the same time, but we know he used to concentrate on race set-up far more so that he had the best possible car for the day when the points were doled out.
t, it's formula one, how can you tell who's the best, when the difference between the best and worst cars is so huge.Eric Mc said:
Who knows? He's not around to state an opinion now and as far as I am aware, he was not one for listing drivers in order of "best" - which he would have looked on as shoddy and meaningless motor sport journalism.
Yes and no. He is on record somewhere as saying that Moss, Clark and Fangio were the best all round drivers he had ever seen, but then he also admits he will always have a natural bias to Moss. I agree that he used to hate the narrow minded approach of the best F1 driver. DSJ always regarded motorsport as a whole.Roebuck is similar but he always defaults to Gilles as the idol he worships on whilst accepting his limitations in the wider scheme of things.
My natural inclination is to with DSJ and Moss. Nobody was as good as Moss in such a wide range of vehicles, not even Clark.
The Senna thing is because he could and do go into that "beyond the red zone" thing on a frequent basis. He went to 11 more than anyone else and he had the skill and self belief to do so. All "the best" had that ability and they all demonstrated it at various points, but none of them went there so frequently, prefering to drive at 9. 9.5 and 10. The danger of death in the "pre-Senna" days always ensured there was that healthy respect of said zone where you went by the invitation of Lady Luck and didnt linger nor visit too often. Fangio only went there a few times after his greatest races admits to not knowing how he did it, nor wanting to remember or know and that it scared the crap out of him just trying to remember. How often do we think Moss could replicate the 55 Mille Miglia? DSJ stated they were gonners a few times but for sheer luck such was Moss's speed and committment beyond anything that DSJ considered either possible or comprehendable. JYS and Clark could both go into that zone at will and indeed JYS even seemed to indulge in a bizarre form of masochism where he would try to venture in there the worse conditions got. Both stated they loathed and detested such driving.
Prost probably called it right with the most perceptive comment of all. Ayrton has a small problem...he thinks he cant kill himself because he believes in God.
Senna is worshipped because he went to the well more often than anybody else. He is also dead because of it and Ill be damned if anybody tells me he wasnt in 110% mode at Imola.
Eric Mc said:
You mean before he crashed out.
That kind of shows he got it wrong - quite a lot actually.
Now then Eric, don't be churlish, I have a lot of respect for both yours and Heebee's knowledge. We were talking about compromising race pace for a fast qualifying set up. There was evidently nothing wrong with Senna's race pace.That kind of shows he got it wrong - quite a lot actually.
I wouldn't call that churlish. The fact that Prost went on and won the race and collected the points while Senna took an early shower seems very relevant here. No one could deny that Senna was immensely fast and capable driver, but there is a tendency to completely ignore any flaws he had.
In that instance he had a 50 second lead and was trading fastest laps with Prost - why? Were it the other way round I suspect Prost would have rather let Senna come haring up behind and Prost still would have won the race by 3 seconds, rather than putting it in the barriers to still be the fastest man on the track.
In that instance he had a 50 second lead and was trading fastest laps with Prost - why? Were it the other way round I suspect Prost would have rather let Senna come haring up behind and Prost still would have won the race by 3 seconds, rather than putting it in the barriers to still be the fastest man on the track.
DJRC said:
Prost probably called it right with the most perceptive comment of all. Ayrton has a small problem...he thinks he cant kill himself because he believes in God.
Senna is worshipped because he went to the well more often than anybody else. He is also dead because of it and Ill be damned if anybody tells me he wasnt in 110% mode at Imola.
+1Senna is worshipped because he went to the well more often than anybody else. He is also dead because of it and Ill be damned if anybody tells me he wasnt in 110% mode at Imola.
Agree completely. He should have walked away from the car, it clearly wasn't happy about being taken where Senna wanted it to go. Such a shame. I didn't like him one jot when I was growing up because he was going up against our nige, and the air of arrogance around him was an immediate turn off. And then in 93 he was taking that underpowered Mclaren places it had absolutely no right to be, and it was difficult not to admire what he was doing. By then it was clear to me that he had immense talent, but I recall watching quite a few pre-season clips where he was really struggling to get his head around that Williams. I can't stand Alonso, but crikey, second in an utter mong of a Ferrari? what's not to like?
There's a huge part of me that feels what happened with Ayrton was inevitable really. Growing old and creaky like Prost? playing with odd cars in the mountatins once a year? it seems wrong that Alain is doing it. I certainly don't envisage it's a path that Ayrton would have taken.
Anyway, definately not over-rated.
Speaking of the Zone and drivers not liking being there, Senna scared himself with that Monaco qualifying session too. He was definitely there.
Prost did that more than once with Senna, put the boot down while he was nowhere near, trying to force Senna to respond and make a mistake. I don't think he managed very often, but at Monaco, it's not just 1.5 seconds faster than his team mate, it's 1.5 seconds faster, and 50 seconds in front of, the second fastest F1 driver on the track at the time, soon to be the most successful in history until Schumacher beat him. In an identical car. That is incredible.
Eric is right, Senna had flaws, and dropping championship points with self induced DNFs was one of them. I don't think though that he could have his strength - that incredible pace - without the flaw though. The one is a side effect of the other. He rode so close to the edge that he was inevitably going to fall off it occasionally. But the payoff was a driver noone could catch, and he wasn't falling off with enough regularity to be concerning (until 1994 when he was really struggling with the Williams balance), but it was enough to allow Prost to beat him on points in both seasons they shared identical cars, even with the speed advantage Senna enjoyed and demonstrated at Monaco.
Prost did that more than once with Senna, put the boot down while he was nowhere near, trying to force Senna to respond and make a mistake. I don't think he managed very often, but at Monaco, it's not just 1.5 seconds faster than his team mate, it's 1.5 seconds faster, and 50 seconds in front of, the second fastest F1 driver on the track at the time, soon to be the most successful in history until Schumacher beat him. In an identical car. That is incredible.
Eric is right, Senna had flaws, and dropping championship points with self induced DNFs was one of them. I don't think though that he could have his strength - that incredible pace - without the flaw though. The one is a side effect of the other. He rode so close to the edge that he was inevitably going to fall off it occasionally. But the payoff was a driver noone could catch, and he wasn't falling off with enough regularity to be concerning (until 1994 when he was really struggling with the Williams balance), but it was enough to allow Prost to beat him on points in both seasons they shared identical cars, even with the speed advantage Senna enjoyed and demonstrated at Monaco.
Edited by Alfanatic on Monday 26th November 09:53
AJS- said:
I wouldn't call that churlish. The fact that Prost went on and won the race and collected the points while Senna took an early shower seems very relevant here. No one could deny that Senna was immensely fast and capable driver, but there is a tendency to completely ignore any flaws he had.
In that instance he had a 50 second lead and was trading fastest laps with Prost - why? Were it the other way round I suspect Prost would have rather let Senna come haring up behind and Prost still would have won the race by 3 seconds, rather than putting it in the barriers to still be the fastest man on the track.
My initial reply was to Heebee's post where he said about the gap between Senna and Prost in qualifying, 'I don't get too excited by that. We don't know what Prost was trying to do at the same time, but we know he used to concentrate on race set-up far more so that he had the best possible car for the day when the points were doled out.'In that instance he had a 50 second lead and was trading fastest laps with Prost - why? Were it the other way round I suspect Prost would have rather let Senna come haring up behind and Prost still would have won the race by 3 seconds, rather than putting it in the barriers to still be the fastest man on the track.
The subject was quali / race pace and to confuse the debate by throwing in other factors in order to defend a point is churlish
Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff