Vettel in Senna's league - Ascanelli

Discussion in 'Motorsports' started by CitroenSM, Apr 21, 2011.

  1. Maybe when either one or both'em retire, who knows what there resumes will when that happens. All I know is I'm basking in their abeyance of success, MFC.
  2. Someone get this guy a dictionary.
  3. #28 lucky strike, Apr 24, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
  4. Hamilton seems to crack under the pressure of getting WDC during the final races of the season
  5. #30 Bugatti4evr, Apr 24, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
  6. This could be one of the greatest posts ever written.
  7. This.

    Senna drove actual race cars, Hamilton and Vettel don't.
  8. Japanese GP Pole Position
    1990 - Ayrton Senna - 1:36.996
    2010 - Sebastian Vettel - 1:30.785

    Senna's car had ABS and traction control, Vettel's didn't.

  9. lol at comparing the two drivers

    lol at comparing the two cars
  10. Bahaha.
  11. Yes, but that's only if you consider 1990. Senna's earlier turbo-era cars were surely much more difficult to drive than Vettel's RB6.

  12. Saying that cars of today are not "real race cars" compared to the cars of the turbo era (for example) doesn't have any basis in fact or reality.

    Those facts that I posted weren't meant to be an outright comparison between the two eras, they were intended to highlight that the statement about modern F1 cars being "not proper racing cars compared to..." is complete bollocks.

    As for the reason for me choosing 1990 as an example. It was Senna's fastest pole position at that track, which hasn't changed significantly enough for lap times to be considered different. If I went back into the turbo era, the times would be slower, and if I went further into the 90s, his car wasn't competitive and he wasn't on pole. I actually chose his most flattering year.

    I don't know why people give Ayrton Senna such a handicap in comparing him to drivers of other eras. If he's compared to Schumacher, Hamilton, Vettel or Alonso, then suddenly the car he's driving is considered much harder to drive.

    On that last point, if the cars were so much harder to drive, why doesn't everybody cream themselves when comparing Prost or Piquet to modern drivers. They were successful in an era when the cars were "wild animals," and there was plenty of competition from other drivers, yet their achievements are overlooked. Or if the cars at the front were difficult to drive, why isn't there as much fanfare for the drivers in the midfield who had similarly powered cars, but with less refined handling and aerodynamics.

    Using the turbo era as a performance handicap seems to only apply to Ayrton Senna when people are arguing. I say it's bollocks.
  13. Don't assume that just because I didn't like your comparison, I agree with the Senna widows in this thread.

    1. I agree that it's ridiculous to say that modern F1 cars aren't "proper racing cars"

    2. I do give Prost and Piquet the same handicap as Senna when comparing them to modern drivers because they also mastered cars that were like "wild animals," but I tend not to put much stock in this. Who's to say that Hamilton and Vettel wouldn't be brilliant in a mid-80s turbo car if they'd been in F1 back then? Maybe they would've been even better than Piquet, Prost, and Senna. It's impossible to know.

    3. I've always liked Schumi much better than Senna and I UGH at people sucking Senna's dick and disrespecting all other great drivers. I think Schumacher was every bit Senna's equal in terms of driving talent and car improvement. People forget that Schumacher was just as successful in inferior cars and in the rain as Senna, if not more so. They also forget that Schumacher made the Ferrari the dominant machine it was. Those 2000-2005 cars were so fast largely because of Schumacher's meticulous testing expertise and feedback. He put a struggling, underachieving team on his back and turned it into the most dominant F1 team of all time, and that says a lot about him as a driver. I put him above Senna. Senna was an incredible talent, but the only thing he did that Schumacher failed to do was die.
  14. hahahaha wow
  15. In that case the best driver of all times must be Juan Manuel Fangio, Seeing the cars he drove was basically nothing more than tin cans with an engine, a seat and four wheels.
  16. Actually, in that case the best driver of all time was Karl Benz, seeing the cars he drove didn't even have steering wheels.

    Edit: in a car with only three wheels made out of wood. This thread has turned shitty.BYE
  17. Oooppsssie, I meant best F1-driver of all times.
  18. How do you know they were much more difficult to drive then? especially now with KERS & DRS
  19. C'mon man, you're just playing devil's advocate here. I obviously don't have first hand experience, but everyone from Lewis Hamilton to Gerhard Berger agrees.

    "Forget everything after. The 1986 turbo Formula One cars...really were rockets. And to handle them, I think, you had to be a man."

    - Gerhard Berger

    -low downforce
    -manual gearbox
    -much more power than the cars of today
    -extremely narrow power band/low driveability (i.e. power didn't come in smoothly)
    -vastly inferior brakes compared to today
    etc. etc.

    Surely you're not trying to argue that the RB7 is as difficult to drive as something like the Lotus 98T just because the driver has to push some extra buttons on the straight...
  21. People quickly forget in what car vettel got his first win, now compare that to Senna and Hamilton's car in which they first won.

    I'm no Vettel fan, but he's clearly superbly talented.
  22. Senna is a myth. No one will ever be greater than him cause of Bugatti4evers favorite term, Rose-tinted Glasses.

    I went to planet-burner (planet-f1) and read there forums for like an hour. The thread on this subject will blow your skull. Infact most threads will.
  23. Any video of Senna gets ridiculous comments. The widows are everywhere.
  24. thank you

Share This Page