Prost or Senna?

[safc_fan89]

An interesting subject for debate is who was the best driver out of Ayrton Senna and Alain Prost? As much as I am tempted to say Senna, I feel he's often rated higher because he was more passionate, spectacular and faster than Prost. But that doesn't necessarily mean he's the best. Although Senna is undoubtedly a legend, I rate Prost as the better driver.

I'm interested to hear your views. And also, don't you think the Raikkonen-Alonso duel is somewhat similar to the Senna-Prost duel?

[Nintendo]

this has been around before. Prost has intelligence. Senna has passion. I'm gonna go with senna.

[davyboy]

I preferred Senna a lot more, but on paper, Prost was a more successful Grand Prix driver. You'd have to say him.

In terms of Raikkonen and Alonso, it is a bit similar alright. Alonso is quite calculated and very much the strategist. Raikkonen's a bit different to Senna, less emotional and less prone to making do or die efforts to overtake... but then possibly some of that has to do with the differences between the cars of their eras. Time will tell over the next 3-4 years if it turns out to be a Prost-Senna rematch... maybe both of them will even end up at Ferrari.

[Nintendo]

i hope they do, and alosno raikkonen should be a great feud.

[safc_fan89]

I wouldn't say 'feud', because Raikkonen wouldn't say stuff in public about the other, or any of that.

The similarity between the Senna-Prost battle and Raikkonen-Alonso is that Alonso is like Prost - a strategist, with more control to his driving, whereas Raikkonen is fast, more aggressive and always seems to be trying to get the most out of the car, like Senna did.

If the rivalry was half as gripping as the Senna-Prost one, we're in for a great few years!

[Mr V]

Just a shame Prost and Senna didn't pair up in the Williams in 1993, i think we would have seen Senna 4 times WDC, Prost 3 times WDC.

[mcb666]

?Rossi

[BootsOntheSide]

Statistically Prost and Senna were fairly even. Their wins per race stat is almost equal, and both always won at least once in cars which anybody won in. When team-mates they won a title each, and neither ever finished behind another team-mate in the championship. Senna's main advantage was in qualifying pace, racking up those 65 poles, often in cars which were not truly capable of regular wins. If they ended up back in the pack, Senna could fight his way through, while Prost could tactically plan thigns and outfox each driver one by one.

I would overall go for Senna as the better driver though, simply because he was faster, and would have bettered all Prost's major stats if he'd had those 2 years at Williams. Some of Ayrton's drives in the 1993 McLaren in the wet against Prost's domiannt Williams suggest that Mr. V might be right.

[Nintendo]

where was rossi mentioned?

[MRJUCY]

At the time I was a Prost fan as Senna could sometimes rub me the wrong way but I beleive Senna was the more gifted driver.

[Bononi]

From all the posts above we can see that it's a matter of "taste" rather than measurements. You can get the best from the statistical perspective, but you'll miss the talent, the genius in between. Simply can't be a better one from out of this two, because they are genius in their own way.
Senna once said he was terrified by how Prost could manage to set the same timing lap after lap.
Prost once said that Senna was 110% into racing while he was 90%, and was amazed how Senna managed to set better times in qualifying - something he mastered almost to perfection.

[garcon]

Always Senna for me.

And yes, I'm hoping for a similar battle of the titans to develop between Alonso and Raikkonen. We could be even luckier - Alonso and Raikkonen may just be part of a three, four or five way fight! Though ultimately I think those two are likely to rise above.

[Trev Campbell]

Originally Posted by Bononi

From all the posts above we can see that it's a matter of "taste" rather than measurements. You can get the best from the statistical perspective, but you'll miss the talent, the genius in between. Simply can't be a better one from out of this two, because they are genius in their own way.
Senna once said he was terrified by how Prost could manage to set the same timing lap after lap.
Prost once said that Senna was 110% into racing while he was 90%, and was amazed how Senna managed to set better times in qualifying - something he mastered almost to perfection.

Great Post Bononi, These 2 drivers were so close talent wise it was not funny, but both drivers went about there driving in a totally diferent manner. Senna went for all out speed to try to break the oppositions back. Post went for fluency and consistency to wear down the opposition. I think people therefore pick Senna because to the untrained eye he was spectacular when he was fast. where as Prost was like watching a metronome. It's said that you could never tell when Prost was pushing like made because his driving always looked so smooth.

Anyway I pick Prost but this is by about .000001 %. These 2 guys would rank in the top 5 drivers of all time.

[davyboy]

The posts here are driven more by personal preference than anything else. Statistically Prost was better, but I think pretty much all of us would choose Senna as a favoured driver for lots of reasons... but the main one was excitement. Prost was boring, Senna was exciting. Its a similar thing with Gilles Villeneuve. The fact that both of them left us at the wheel only augments their legendary status.

The funny thing is, Prost wasn't always so calm and calculated. When he raced karts in the 1970s he had a 'James Hunt like' reputation for taking people out [on and off the circuit] and there is a famous story of a punch up between himself and Francois Goldstein [the world champion at the time] after an on-track scurmish.

[davyboy]

Nintendo, noticed you changed your address to "Mondello Heights"... have Tallaght and Clondalkin now spread past Naas :-)

[chunterer]

Originally Posted by safc_fan89

The similarity between the Senna-Prost battle and Raikkonen-Alonso is that Alonso is like Prost - a strategist, with more control to his driving, whereas Raikkonen is fast, more aggressive and always seems to be trying to get the most out of the car, like Senna did.

If the rivalry was half as gripping as the Senna-Prost one, we're in for a great few years!

On the basis of his last few drives, Alonso isn't much like Prost at all!! but i know what you mean- Alonso is more agrressvie than we've given him credit for, which is what he wanted to prove once he's wrapped up the title. I see him as like JYS or a more polished Senna.

I don't think there's much between them in terms of aggression as we'll see from the beginning in 2006!!

But oh yes we're in for a few cracking years of these two battling

[chunterer]

To the point...i'll go for Senna - When they both had Mclaren's not much in it? but in 1990 Prost largely had the better car but Senna beat him (leaving out Suzuka) and then in '93 he was absoloutely on it all the time in a car that was nowhere near Prost's Williams much of the time.

[climb]

About raw talent I think only Gilles Villeneuve can be compared to Senna (with some chances to prevail).
Nonetheless Prost's ability to understand the car as his own body was uncomparable as well.
Without pairing with Prost those years at Macs, I'm not sure Senna would have matured the way he did, with the consequent achievements.
On pure speed Senna was the better, although under the current F1 regs Prost would blow everybody away.

[climb]

Originally Posted by chunterer

...but in 1990 Prost largely had the better car ...

That's nothing more than a personal opinion; i respect it, but there's no evidence of it.

[chunterer]

Without exact reference to races, there were several events where the Ferrari was miles clear of the McLaren because it was supposedly aero and tyre wise superior negating the V12's lack of grunt compared to the handy Honda V10..

Based on what they did with what they had, I am fairly condident that if Ayrton had the 640/1 and Prost the MP4/5, Ayrton would have won the title anyway and probably before Suzuka

Hypothetical, i know but it's my overwhelming gut instinct...

Senna definitely had the motivation and edge over that period of late 80's early 90's and was coming into his own...

...and we know how many titles he would have won if he was still around after 1994!!

[BootsOntheSide]

Comparing what Mansell and Berger did in the second McLaren and Ferrari respectively, it seems like the McLaren was the better car in 1990, but I agree that you can't really be sure.

It's interesting that, when teamed in 1989, Senna had much worse reliability, suggesting that he had to push the car harder to get a similar level of performance. Conversely, a lot of Prost's wins came as a result of someone breaking down ahead of him.

[chunterer]

Originally Posted by BootsOntheSide

Comparing what Mansell and Berger did in the second McLaren and Ferrari respectively, it seems like the McLaren was the better car in 1990, but I agree that you can't really be sure.

Well Nigel's car kept breaking if i remember right, which cost him a lot of points and a fair few wins..usually when he was at, or near the front. Again i feel this tends to suggest that particular Ferrari's superiority to a degree and in relation to the thread would have given Prost the advantage overall...

It's interesting that, when teamed in 1989, Senna had much worse reliability, suggesting that he had to push the car harder to get a similar level of performance. Conversely, a lot of Prost's wins came as a result of someone breaking down ahead of him.

Yes, that's an interesting point, i'm not sure there were an awful many times where both cars finished 1-2, or in which order, but i confess i haven't got immediate access to statistics

[chunterer]

Oh drat, I'M sorry Boots - i'm having problems with PC today so my repLy to part one of you're comment has gone into your quote!

[f1manoz]

The only way to separate the two is by statistics, and simply on that, Prost comes out ahead. Personally, I rate each as good as the other.

[chunterer]

Yeah but statistics say Schuey is the best driver ever and i quite confident that ain't right! Well i certainly don't think he is faster than Senna was or Gilles?

Statistics only give us one side of a story or situation

Sure they are a balanced way of judging things but not necessarily the most insightful...

I'm gonna start a different thread about WDC's - who won in a given year, who should've and who would've (and i promise it won't be biased!!). I reckon there are quite a few examples since 1980 of how the appropriate driver/package didn't win the title when they should've, but that's for another day.