Senna vs. Schumacher

[badoer fan]

Originally posted by Dino IV
Tsk tsk, you skipped 1989 out of fanship I guess?

Assuming you're talking to me, that was Senna's fault. Prost had nowhere else to go except to turn in. Senna dived in from MILES back, in another of his typical maneuvers.

Fanship? Nope, not a fan of Prost particularly.

[Dino IV]

I am no fan of directing you to another board, BF, and I could tell you just the same but maybe this thoroughly elaborated work will convince you more so in this case I'd suggest you take a look at the AtlasF1 Courtroom (or however they call it) as Suzuka 1989 was one of the cases. Conclusion was it was Prost intent of hitting Senna as the point of steering in had no connection with making the corner in any sensible way. In other words same as we've seen in Jerez 1997. Steering with the intent of collision.

[Jari]

I hear you Dino. (This is directed towards an earlier post where you say my argument is void)
You fail to see where they where coming from.
Those cars back in the fifties and forward upto the late seventies where trial and error tested cars while todays cars are optimised in every sence of the word. The differences in laptimes between the slowest and the fastest car back then is enough to tell the difference. Another thing is what you'd expect them to say after the first couple of laps in a car from a different decade/era.
If you would put JMFangio, MH and MS (if it was possible) to really work for a few months in a 54 and a 2001 car respectively I'm sure at the end of the day JMF would loose in combined times. None of them are afraid of putting the car sideways or going fast into blind curves. The problem is that todays safetymeasures are a tad higher than back then. The biggest difference comes from the forces your body goes through in a modern car (up to 5G) which would make JMF out of contention. The physical level of the "athletes" is totally changed also. No one of the racers upto the late seventies would run a marathon while some of todays do for the heck of it. Back in the early seventies the racing was still for the "playboys" and the ones rich enough to afford a car while todays racers are handpicked as teen from different series and optimised for one purpose only. The competition is more than ever "fearce" like it never has been before. Most of what is said from those days are old mens romanticising, so we might as well forget about it. From 76 and forward is the only times even remotely comparable and the rest could be filled in by Niki Lauda, Jackie Stewart, Rosberg, Prost, Piquet and these sort of guys. Before that the sport was something entirely different. (Not to say it wasn't a lot of fun)

The car looks like it could be the silver arrow that ended Mercedes previous F1-campaign after a horrible crash where a lot of people in the audience died.

[badoer fan]

Originally posted by Dino IV
I am no fan of directing you to another board, BF, and I could tell you just the same but maybe this thoroughly elaborated work will convince you more so in this case I'd suggest you take a look at the AtlasF1 Courtroom (or however they call it) as Suzuka 1989 was one of the cases. Conclusion was it was Prost intent of hitting Senna as the point of steering in had no connection with making the corner in any sensible way. In other words same as we've seen in Jerez 1997. Steering with the intent of collision.

And how (may I ask incredibly politely) did they come to this conclusion?

[Bononi]

Originally posted by badoer fan


And how (may I ask incredibly politely) did they come to this conclusion?

Please Badoer be gentle...

[Dino IV]

BF > You can read all about it here

[mjstallard]

In terms of sheer political/on track ruthlessness, I feel there is one key difference between the two - Senna never tried to project an image of Mr. Nice Guy.

*ducks for cover under table*

In terms of driver talent, I feel that Senna probably was the superior (even though I disliked him at the time on a par with m dislike for Mr. Shoemaker ). But perhaps in political ruthlessness, Schumi probably wins.

hmm, im going back to bed :P

[Dino IV]

This gets you in the area, Jari, where the fundamental question 'can we compare era's with eachother' roams.

Originally posted by Jari
Those cars back in the fifties and forward upto the late seventies where trial and error tested cars while todays cars are optimised in every sence of the word.

I could argue this both ways for you. Firstly by stating 'Those cars back in the fifties were optimised in every sence of the word by the standards of that time' and if one was very convinced of today's F1 professionalism that would be understandable. Secondly by stating that 'Today's cars are not optimised in every sence of the word but are trial and error tested'. Knowing a fair share of F1 techstuff I'd say the latter is most true. Racing car engineering is no exact science and imo never will be. i.e. Until a decade ago only a couple of aerodynamicists were active in F1 engineering, today their numbers have multiplied hundredfold. They do their absolute best to optimise that little wingendplate, vortexgenerator or gurneyflap they're responsible for, but the overall design, the basic parameters that influence all others, are still chosen on very vague grounds, merely by a feeling and developed by trial and error. A lot has changed in terms of production quality, available materials etc, the vast number of people working on them reduce the areas which might be overlooked and the database of automotive 't&e' knowledge is growing everyday, but the basic principle is still the same as ever.

The differences in laptimes between the slowest and the fastest car back then is enough to tell the difference.

The difference of professionalism that is. The fact that everyone drives new state-of-the-art cars and that all drivers are the top cream from the 'openwheeler university' preceeding F1. No older cars nor rich playboy Counts or Dukes having some sunday fun at the back. That has been carefully filtered out, although the funding principle still does favours to the ones who can play with it.

Another thing is what you'd expect them to say after the first couple of laps in a car from a different decade/era.

Well we know a little don't we? A lot of men have been driving F1's for the first time out of way underpowered little cars and they all comment on the big impression especially the brakes and the 'aero-glue' has on them. I guess Juan Manuel would say something similar. The other way around we know what today's drivers say about the old guns when driven at various events like Goodwood. Frightning, scary, untrustworthy, lack of feel due to the big amount of play in steering and suspension components and the flexibility of the chassis. Undrivable powerbands, skinny tires, throttles as an on\off switch, spinning wheels at 150 mph and so on. Or belittling statements like TGF made ... I guess Juan Manuel would laugh wholeheartedly.

The car looks like it could be the silver arrow that ended Mercedes previous F1-campaign after a horrible crash where a lot of people in the audience died.

No it isn't. It's Juan Manual Fangio in the Ferrari Lancia D50 drifting around Mirabeau at the 1956 Monaco Grand Prix. Considering the statements on the machinery above, imagine the skills it takes to take that car to the limit and drift it alongside a stone edged trottoir at a few inches. That takes a lot of qualities today's drivers are not known for. That's i.e. the 'racecraft' I already mentioned in another thread, today's drivers need not have in F1. That's a mental challenge and determination of a magnitude which isn't asked from drivers today.

It's a different game today, as it was back then, therefore uncomparable, which makes direct comparisons void.

[drexel]

Schumacher, Mr Nice Guy? I don't think he's tried to portray an image of niceness, just professionalism and loyalty to the team. Anyway...

Senna - Most 'purely talented' (speed wise) driver of modern era. 65 poles, 'nuff said.

Schumacher - Most 'complete' driver. Gifted with every weapon imaginable and more. Rarely has a bad day.

[Bononi]

Nice post Dino IV !!!!!

[Fone]

Senna by miles, he had better contenders

[Jari]

>Dino, I wouldn't want to start quoting right now as I'm pretty tired. The main thing I'd like to point out still is that when it comes to professionalism in F1 cardevelopment the turning point is (IS) mid seventies. Before that you could gather up an occasional winner back home in your garage. I can't see your comparison between todays teams of hundreds of engineers with windtunnels and megazillions of computerpower being the same thing as the equivalent of the fifties. Remember that the airplanes where already in place flying globally and the spaceprograms where close to liftoff for the russians already then. How much of the "knowledge" was used?
None. The wings came on at the turn of the decade at around 70.
For reference, see the film Grand Prix, the golden years commentated by John Watson.

[badoer fan]

Originally posted by Dino IV
BF > You can read all about it here

lots of people saying the same stuff as we are here, and then 3 incredibly pompous people coming 'unanimourly' to the verdict. How?

I accept that Prost turned in early. To protect his line perhaps? They conveniently ignore the fact that Senna was coming in far too fast for that particular corner (which they do admit but then skim over).

[Dino IV]

BF > Imo it's a very well worked out, well argued case and judged very cautiously. The 'diving in from far behind' argument only reminds me of similar arguments of people who argued that Villeneuve should have been glad for Schumi's intended collision at Jerez, otherwise he wouldn't have made the corner. The intent of the overtaker is obviously not to drive the ideal line through that corner but to pass his opponent by diving in next to him. That's the basic idea behind it.

[Dino IV]

Jari > I don't agree on the turning point of professionalim in F1 car design being the early 1970's as wings sprouted rapidly from the cars. Firstly because I don't think that it's car design profesionalised at that point in time. And secondly because car design has had it's turning point, but has yet failed to reach professionalism in certain areas.

So to start on that first one: It's not the car design part that was profesionalising more rapidly than years before in the seventies (the Mueller bros already outran the factory Porsches as early as 1954 with their winged car), it was commercialism which was booming and made F1 look more profesional than it was before.

And to get on with the second: But beside some genius\copy-cat findings in F1 cars (as throughout all racing history) nothing was really happening. Even the aerodynamics development was just on nothes and feeling than research. Cars where put on lorries and driven at speed with little vanes on them to actually see how the aeroflow. And although the measuring devices developed themselves along the need for their data, it was all trial and error. Towards the end of the eighties only two or three engineers who could label themselves aerodynamicists where working in F1. And still today it's not much of any groundbraking value in the aero-departments. One can tell easily by just looking at the cars where the whole spectrum of differences in high and low noses, airboxes, sidepods, front- and rearwings, bargeboards, splitters, undertrays and the vast amounts of corrective little bodywork on almost every car tell you the unsecure basis on which work in that aera is carried out. The test and try and feel their heading in a bad or hopeful direction and subsequently restart all over again or carry on from that. They nose around every detail the others are doing and when they suspect a succesful shape or construction they just copy-paste it and try to make it work. Nothing really different from what i.e. any hillclimber is doing as well these days, or any F1 team in the past.

What really shook F1 around imo where not seventies wings, but all early nineties stuff. Firstly electronics, secondly pneumatics and thirdly acoustics. Electronically mastered hydraulics ignited from active supension, drive-by-wire and led to electronic gizmo's which guide today's cars around the track with less parameters depending on the 'faulty driver' (compared to the pc) and thus in a faster fashion. Pneumatically closed valves led F1 engines past the 14.000 rpm border - an area where engineering hadn't gained even 10% in the previous 50 years. Acoustics led to extremely effective airboxes which took normally aspirated engines way past their volumetric efficiencies leading F1 into bhp-ranges unheard of before. Also worth mentioning is the interaction between post-1990 budgets and therefore available reasearch of materials - which is as a matter of fact an exact science and therefore delivering results if pumped vast amounts of money in.

Aerodynamics don't follow that same principle. Some cars on today's grid are aerodynamic nightmares to their team. Same goes in other areas. Problem is that most engineers in charge now, are old men who have learnt their ways in racecar engineering through trial and error and therefore built upon their experience. They like their jobs (ofcourse ..) and don't like to step aside and declare this a new era where another approach is probably better than theirs (note, the same approach as throughout racing history). They'll work like they're used to, blame everything on time pressure and will leave when their time has come and some honorary function awaits. That's what we're actually doing right know waiting for the old squad to leave along with its T&E approach and for the new generation of engineering to take over.

Not to blame all of them as there are some really great and exceptional engineers outthere, like John Barnard who acknowledged the failures in the old approach and tried to break out of it with his Ferrari think-tank in the UK, but he became victim of the Todt\Brawn\Schumacher reorganisation who didn't want any groundbreaking advances but just a fast tank like all the others. Nevertheless he's the uncrowned emperor of designers as on any car even today his ideas are still in use. Another one is Mario Ilien who's an immaculate engineer and works independant from McLaren rush-hour, cynical of F1 ('so viele motorli fuer ein wenig runden schnurren'), extremely rarely seen at GP's, quiet and steadily working his craft in his lab\factory. Whatever the qualities of a season's engine design of his, he'll discard it all and start again from blank for the next in an ultimate effort not to take any previous decisions for granted and consider all the engineering design crossroads all over again.

Along the way we've drifted away from the driver issues, but compared to 'drivers science' F1 aerodynamics are extremely exact.

[paulzinho]

erm SENNA VS SCHUMACHER

[Dino IV]

I already voted, don't worry ...

[badoer fan]

Originally posted by Dino IV
BF > Imo it's a very well worked out, well argued case and judged very cautiously. The 'diving in from far behind' argument only reminds me of similar arguments of people who argued that Villeneuve should have been glad for Schumi's intended collision at Jerez, otherwise he wouldn't have made the corner. The intent of the overtaker is obviously not to drive the ideal line through that corner but to pass his opponent by diving in next to him. That's the basic idea behind it.

But it is to avoid driving into someone if they happen to turn in and protect their line (quite reasonably).

Differences between that and Jerez. JV was obviously ahead when TGF went to hit him, as shown by the fact that TGF's front wheel hit the side pod. However, in 1989 when the pair clashed, Prost is quite obviously ahead.

[Jari]

>Dino.
So, you don't think it began with Turbos, groundeffects, designer-undertrays and so on?
You must realise that you are going against most of the public opinion on this one. But I see your points and I'd like you to elaborate on this one.

[Speed]

Originally posted by Dino IV
TGF didn't make comments on this behaviour but instead said he 'would take a rattling car like that for cruising or shopping with his wife, not for racing'. Fact is those drivers back then didn't 'cruise or went shopping with their wifes', they were racing, wringing every bit of speed out of these machines.

Poor argument...

They didnt have any other option on those days..., same as TGF doesn't have any on these. In 30 years, some guy will say the same about 1990 - 2000's cars, as TGF says today in that interview about 1960's cars...

[Liz]

I'd like to see the day when TGF goes shopping with his wife. Hah! He's probably got half the guys at Ferrari doing that job for him too. (Or perhaps Rubens )

Put him in the 1979 John Player Lotus and make him race Mario Andretti - today - and I'd buy a ticket to hear them both talk about it afterwards. In the same room, at the same time, live broadcast.

But I still think Prost was better than both Senna and TGF.

[Bononi]

tsk, tsk.

Comparisions...

always lead to this.

[BBKing]

Originally posted by Liz
But I still think Prost was better than both Senna and TGF.

Are you talking about Alain? or was there actually another Prost in F1 history who would be worthy of saying he was better than Both...LOL.

[Dino IV]

BF > I didn't mean to hijack this thread and discuss the same case all over again. I just brought it to your attention as it seemed to me you were blaming the wrong one, and the Atlas case seems justifiable enough to back that up. That's all.

Jari >

So, you don't think it began with Turbos, groundeffects, designer-undertrays and so on?

In your previous post you define "it" as 'professionalism in cardesign', and did so as the ever increasing 'professionalism' would indicate higher demands and therefore better drivers these days, as you said in your first post. Furthermore you defined "it"'s starting point at the early seventies as the wings started to grow bigger and bigger and downforce made the whole thing a lot faster. I disagreed with you on that by arguing that 'professionalism in cardesign' is not as fancy as it may seem and that it's, by both the nature of racing car engineering as the heritage of that by the people in charge today, still not far off the working methods of past racing car architects.

Now you bring on 'Turbo's, groundeffects and designer-undertrays', which are all very nice performance improvers, but don't mean much to me as turning points in 'professionalism'. Not sure what you mean by 'the public opinion' on this one either. Is that something which we must all share or declared crazy if not? I.e. a much larger improvement were radial tires, something 'the public opinion' isn't as enthusiastic about as something wildly imaginative as Turbo's.

Speed > 'Poor argument'. In itself perhaps, not in this discussion. It indicates very clear that it's unquestionable that the drivers hierarchy in a certain point in racing history (or future ..) comes with the machinery, but however remains very questionable that the driver hierarchy can be transferred across different machineries throughout racing history.

Liz > 'But I still think' that Prost was a different driver than Senna, as is TGF ...

Ronnie would have had loads of fun in that same room though.

[Roy2]

Someone who sees a picture of Fangio racing a 1956 Ferrari/Lancia D50 and calls it a 'silver arrow' hasn't spent much time following the GP racing of Fangio's era. But even if you had immersed yourself in Fangio's career you couldn't compare him to the modern drivers, and have any basis for deciding that he belongs in a 3rd tier of champions who never had to compete hard for their titles.

He lived and raced in a different world. He couldn't have driven Prost's car, or Senna's, or Schumacher's. To state the obvious, he was 69 years old when Prost enterd F1 in 1980 and 80 years old when Schumacher started. Okay, so we'll imagine him to be 38, his age when he first began to race GP cars in Europe, stick him in a modern era F1 car, and see how he goes. His first challenge would be to get seated in the thing. That done I imagine he would be delighted at the opportunity to take a few laps in it. But the experience would be vastly different from anything in his background, and it's possible that he simply couldn't make the transition to race the car, given the differences in chassis, tires, power, aerodynamics, and G forces, taxing his 38 year old mind and body. But for all we know he might like it, and wish mightily that he had had the chance to drive these cars when he was younger.

So fine, let's imagine a young Fangio getting the same shot that a Prost, Senna, or Schumacher had at driving the modern F1 car. Do you think that a young Fangio, with a background suitable for modern F1, couldn't rise to the top? Of course you can't say for sure that he couldn't and I can't say that he could. It's a matter of probabilities that can't be calculated, and the whole exercise is pointless. It just shows how far away were are from being able to say anything like 'Fangio ranks only with the 3rd tier of champions...'

Conversely, if the modern greats had a chance to drive the old F1 cars of the '50's in anger, they would probably be unable to drive them to the limits that Fangio approached. It would simply appear too dangerous to them, or if they were bold enough they might not live to be very old. However, if we imagine them being young in 1949 with suitable backgrounds and so on...

There is a great gulf fixed that can't be bridged by even the most informed speculation.