Supposedly, Aryton and Alain reconciled earlier in the weekend before the race he snuffed it. I don’t know how true that really is.
As long as I have time to kill and I have made some pretty harsh comments about the Brazilian Wunderkind, allow me the indulgence of clarifying my position.
While I freely admit Senna was “brilliant” behind the wheel and a master of the wet, I don’t think he was nearly the legend that has been created since his death. He was tempermental and prone to self-induced mistakes in races (some claim he was pushing way too hard on cold tires when he crashed and killed himself). He would blame others for mistakes. He would threaten to quit if not given the latest technology immediatly. He would be difficult and antagonistic toward his teammate and team. On at least two occasions I can recall from hazy memory, he nearly (or, in fact did) start fist-fights in the pits after the race with rookies or back-markers! On at least two occasions as I recall from hazy memory he was involved in “questionable” manouvers that led to accidents in tight points races. His performance was only adequate when not in the best car in the field.
In my mind, he is very much like J. Villenueve or E. Irvine, but had more (or created more) breaks and capitalilzed on them. I’m not sure if the analogy is too accurate, but you may say he was the Ty Cobb of F1, with the exception that Cobb was widely acknowledged as an asshole, but in Senna’s case, that part of his persona seem to get overlooked. Since his death, he has been made out to be the freakin’ Patron Saint of Formula One! I’m really just tired of all the announcers fighting for the first spot in line to fellate his corpse.
So, yeah, he was good. No more so than Prost or Lauda, and certainly not as good as Schumacher. Hell, I’d rank him somewhere around Damon or Mika (but with more championships), but I wouldn’t want to have him over to the house for a beer. You could have put Alesi or Coulthard in his car, and produced similar results without the added drama. Had he finished out his days in F1, I believe his true colors would have shown as Schumacher beat his ass regularly, and his behavior both on and off the track would have embarassed the sport.
Anyway, thats just what I think. Just a personal opinion. I’ll be glad when Michael finally wipes his name from the record books and maybe the din will die down and some prospective will return. He was just a good F1 driver, not F1 God Allmighty.
Actual headline: “Church ends probe of Gay Bishop”
For non-racing cleverness, I’d go with Graham Hill. He was fantastic in interview - so quick-witted. And he was brilliant in the BBC show “Call My Bluff”.
Racing cleverness? Michael Schumacher for reasons given by others.
Well gato, there was of course the famous podium embrace Prost and Senna shared after the final race of 1993, Alain’s retirement. Suzuka, I think. Relationships were much better after they didn’t compete on the track.
Your characterisation of Senna certainly is accurate to a degree. He was a cocky bastard, and yeah, he did get into fist fights with rookies, one of them being Eddy Irvine on his debut GP. The Irv had the nerve to unlap himself as Senna was cruising to the finish with a one minute lead, and Senna didn’t like that one bit. I agree that a lot of his charisma was raw force on the track rather than intellect, although he did know how to set up a car like no one else - well, maybe Schumacher.
I like the comparison to Jacques Villeneuve: speaking of this family, I always tend to think of Senna as a kind of Gilles Villeneuve with a little more intellect. Gilles was by far the most spectacular driver ever, but he demolished everything he drove. If he didn’t crash it, he completely tore it apart by his driving anyway. Senna, not so much: whilst not nearly as clinical as Prost in his approach, he did have the analytical skills to take the car a step further, to develop it, to get the most out of it.
As for putting him in between Damon and Mika: come on now. The first would never have been world champion had he been in any other car than THAT Williams, THAT year, and the latter (whilst talented) lacked the cojones Senna had. And Coulthard producing similar results? Seeing as how DC drove that same car later in the year Senna died, and only got one podium out of 8 starts, I highly doubt that. Sure, he was brand new, but I think history has shown us that even when DC’s in the top car (e.g. the McLaren the years Mika drove it to the title), he’s not there to duke it out with the best of them. An utterly mediocre driver whose credit was lost long ago, IMHO. Ron Dennis ought to kick him out and get Webber or Villeneuve for next year (OK, I’m biased with regard to the latter, I just like him, OK? :)).
Senna… what can I say. He was a son of a bitch at times, but I miss him.
Considering the length and breadth of motor racing, I just don’t buy that the top three would all be in the same form of racing, and within the last twenty years. And I think of “cleverness” as requiring a certain mental flexibility and originality. Modern Formula One is so structured and regimented that I don’t see much room from improvisation. I think you’re taking your selections only from what you’re most familiar with.
Having taken you to task for your prejudices, let me now display my own. No one’s mentioned anything about my two nominations, Dan Gurney and Jack Brabham. They didn’t just tinker with their car’s setup, they built the damn things.
And you didn’t even mention any sports car drivers. I would say that endurance racing, with all the uncertainties and compromises, rewards cleverness far more than F1. Derek Bell, with five victories at Le Mans, has to be included.
And I’ll have to do a little more research on Jim Hall. The design innovations he came up with for his Chaparrals in the Can-Am series were brilliant.
Um, ever been to a dirt track race? Those are open wheel cars and the NASCAR guys would stomp all over any F1 driver who wanted to come get in the mud. Many of the NASCAR guys regularly “slum” at sprint car races. Including A.J Foyt who was mentioned as a clever driver. He’s so clever he managed to run himself over with his own sprint car at one point…
Not really, although you’re right that F1 is what I’m most familiar with. No, we just take different approaches. I first defined what the pinnacle of motor sports is to me (F1), and started selecting from there, acting under the -admittedly personal- presumption that if you’re the most clever F1 driver, you’re the most clever driver of them all. But yeah, of course one could define cleverness in other areas, too, and people are doing just that. Perhaps the debate about what consitutes the highest echelon of motor racing warrants a thread of its own.
Nothing but praise for Gurney (a true pioneer) and Brabham. It’s just that they don’t make the cut in my book because at the time, competition was far less - a factor I reckon highly. Other might not so much, and that’s fine too. Gurney built his own car, in a time that the level of professionalism varied greatly between teams. Some F1 cars back in the day were essentially roadgoing sports cars with a tune up, and then there were guys like Gurney, who lapped the others 15 times per race. Impressive, but a feat of dedication rather than cleverness, IMHO.
Endurance racing crossed my mind. I disqualified it for two reasons: one, you share a car with two other drivers - you share the victories as well. Two, endurance racing is essentially about who builds the fastest and most reliable car. How often do you see a dog fight to the flag at Le Mans? I respect the drivers, but I find it rather dull, myself.
Well, we ought to keep in mind that Damon WOULD have been world champion the year before had Schumacher not bumped him off the track (having just had a race ending collision with a tyre barrier at Adelaide (Melbourne?).
Since we are talking clever, and not necessarily talented, it ought to be noted that deliberately running into someone else is a pretty clever move when it brings you the Championship. Thus Senna sideswiping Prost at Suzuka in 1990 and Schumacher taking out (I watched the race and never for a second thought it was anything other than deliberate, despite Damon’s belief that Schuey didn’t do it on purpose) Hill.
Somebody else suggested that Senna caused his fatal crash by pushing too hard on cold tyres, but it was lap 7, IIRC… more than far enough to warm up one’s tyres.
Well, there had been a safety car situation, and the pack was led by an underpowered Opel Vectra. Cold tyres remain a factor of speculation to this day.
FWIW, National Geographic recently aired a documentary called “Senna: seconds from death” which analyses the crash in great detail. According to that, it wasn’t the tyres that did it. The oft-mentioned steering rod wasn’t it, either: telemetry shows it broke on impact, not before. The most likely reason was Senna’s car “bottomed” in the Tamburello bend, causing a momentary loss of grip. As he clipped the curbs, the car lost even more grip, and braking and steering couldn’t prevent a crash. Mind you, he would have lived, if it weren’t for the terribly unlucky fact that a suspension bar from the right from wheel broke, and penetrated his helmet.
Those are some of the reasons I favor it, at least when it come to driver cleverness. They are sharing a car with other drivers, which means the setup is a compromise and the drivers have to adapt to it. And they have to balance speed against endurance, getting the most out of the car, and themselves, without breaking. The car, weather, track, and visibility all change dramatically over a race.
Don’t get me wrong, modern Formula One drivers are spectacularly skilled at what they do, but each race is essentially a two-hour sprint. Without some of those other complexities, I don’t think it rewards cleverness as much as other types, or eras, of racing.
Since this has turned into a “which series is better/tougher/cleverer:confused:” I will submit that WRC drivers are the most badass, followed by NASCAR drivers followed by pointy cars.
I’m no big fan of Senna either. But I won’t deny his talents. And I think you’re being just a little too harsh on him here. He had a huge temper for those he considered “beneath” him in the racing arena (everybody) - but it was born of a real desire to be the best, and a huge amount of racing commitement. The McLaren team admits that there were very few that would spend as many hours going through each incident in such vast technical detail, and with such meticulous attention to set-up. I really have no idea just why he was loved so particularly much, but listening to him talk to his engineer on board on one of his warm-up laps, he did go into enormous detail about the activation of his tyres in the wet. So I’ll give him credit where it’s due.
His 1984 debut in Monaco (also on a wet track) was in an underpowered Toleman. He came second in that race after Alain Prost had the race red-flagged (he always hated the wet). Maybe not impressive to you but I think the fact that he drove around (masterfully) the track in what was effectively a heap goes a long way to re-touching his talents.
I never understood the argument that he always needed the best car to win. The two years that he wasn’t particularly competitive (but he still won races) were '92 and '93. But the McLaren had lost it’s Honda powered engines (which had been given to Williams for the '92 season), rendering the car effectiveless against the might of the Williams.
I might as well say that Prost always needed the best car to win (though because he’s one of my favourite drivers I won’t :)). Let’s face it; he most certainly had the best cars in '88 (with the actively suspended Lotus McLaren) and '93 (who the hell could forget the Williams FW15C? You might as well have stuck dynamite to the back of everyone else’s cars - no man-made machine was ever gonna beat that thing). You can’t win without a competitive car - no matter who the hell you are and how good you are. It ain’t gonna happen except in the most exceptional of circumstances (namely, when the track favours you and not your opponents).
As for Senna’s death, you can hardly blame him for attempting to take the fastest line out of the dreaded Tamburello corner at Imola 1994. As Coldfire has mentioned, his death wasn’t caused by a broken steering wheel. Senna’s Williams was fitted with power-steering, and the twisting force he applied to it was constantly being measured. As there was a final figure (something like -7.0 N/M2) right up until the moment of impact with the wall, it was concluded that there was no brake in the steering column - therefore it could not have caused the impact, though it was later found to be broken.
What had actually happened was that there was an incident on the track which brought out the yellow flags. The cars had dramatically slowed down, which cooled down the tires so that they contracted (as much as 25% in volume). This caused the critical drop in the ride height (the height at which the car rests above the ground) which was to be fatal for Senna. This was because the bottom skid of the car was touching the ground (which you viewers at home saw as sparks coming from the back of Senna’s car) just as he aimed the car at the apex, attempting to go around the corner flat-out. This cut off the air-flow underneath the car, which for Senna resulted in a huge loss in grip travelling around a corner at around 190 mph. The car for this split-second was resting on it’s metallic skid, and the back end flew off. Senna corrected for this at lighnting speed (1/10th of a second) and steered into the slide and hit the brakes full on, but it was too late. He just plain ran out of road. He also got unlucky with one of the tyres which happened to hit him at the wrong angle in the head - otherwise he would have walked out of the crash just fine.
As a consequence I’d call the accident more of a freak than a testament to his driving aptitude or his mental state. Drivers at the time understood the risks and went for it; that was thier job. Remember that in the end his accident did result in the adaptation of the Tamburello curve and a radical re-think of track design the world over to encourage safety.
Luckily for Brawn, it turned out that Michael could do a blistering two laps just before the race finish. And for me, this has always been the case for Ross Brawn. It not so much that Brawn has a brilliant strategy, it’s that Michael drives the car, and as Frank Williams notes, he is the champion of the last two out-laps (and always has been). For example Monaco this year, Michael managed to qualify third despite carrying effectively 50% more fuel than the front two (Montoya and Ralf). For him this was pretty shitty because at the end of the day, no-one overtakes at Monaco. Qualifying further up the grid (with less fuel on board) would have given him a huge advantage (as far as I can remember tires would not have made that much of a difference here - he would have held up the front two until his first pit-stop, maybe even running away a little because of the initial graining effect on the Michelins). Anyway that’s my take on things - he’s overrated. A guy I would vote for more often for this category is Adrian Nuey. At the end of the day he has saved Raikonnen a hell of a lot by consistently releasing his man into “clean air” during the pit-stops - something that Brawn has not achieved.
And guys you were right. I made an idiot’s mistake by not including Dale Earnhardt. Forgive me.
I had a tape copy of the live race where Senna buys it. While the crash itself is pretty non-spectacular, there is a scene shot from the circling helecoptor that really creeps me out. The camera zooms in on Senna and you see slumped in the cockpit, unmoving. He makes one sudden “twitch” or jerk, then thats it. I saw that and knew it was done.
I’d have to vote for Graham Hill. Only driver (AFAIK) to have won the Formula 1 Championship, Le Mans 24 Hr and Indy 500.
He was the master at Monaco - including once when he missed a turn - jumped out of the car - pushed it back on to the track on his own - jumped back in - and went on to win
-nitpick- Actually McLaren still had Honda engines in '92. Honda left McLaren at the end of the '92 season, but not for Williams. They left because Renault (who provided Williams with engines from '91 onward) debuted the RS7 engine series for the '92 season and Honda was hopelessly outclassed (as was every other constructor) for the entire season.
ShetlandPony I’d say Senna was the master of Monaco. 6 career victories, five of them in a row… nobody could beat him there. Graham Hill won at Monaco through luck and grit; Senna simply outdrove everyone else. Jim Clark also did the Monaco/Indy double, btw., but not Le Mans.
This raises another question; is Monaco a viable F1 course apart from its heritage? IMHO, it seems to lend itself to parades in which pit strategy plays a large part. Just one face ran’s opinion…
Really, this is like a commentary on F1 in general… Honestly, I don’t watch every race, but as a open-wheel fan I catch it where/when I can. I don’t see the aggression on the track that I see in CART or even IRL.
Note: I’m a Tony George = Satan guy from way back… but the IRL does put on a show…
You’ve got a point there, about some F1 tracks just being plain boring. Apart from Monaco, which will always be on the calendar for monetary reasons alone, there’s boring tracks like Barcelona (only fun when it’s soaking wet), and, God forbid, the dreadful Hungaroring (which also runs on heritage, as it once was a GREAT track back in the day).
Luckily, Ecclestone and his cronies are constantly in pursuit of new sources of money, I mean, new exciting tracks, so over the last years, we’ve seen the introduction of the brilliant Sepang track in Malaysia, the fantastic Indy Road Course, the rise and fall of the A1-Ring in Austria, and in the coming years we’ll watch races in Dubai, China, and perhaps Russia. Who knows, it’ll all be exciting again in the end? Then again, if Bernie doesn’t like the local tobacco laws, he’ll just as easily drop the greatest grand prix of the year: Spa Francorchamps, I can’t wait until 2004 - Eau Rouge flat out! Also, he used the same threat recently towards the Montreal GP, easily one of the greatest of the year.
Hockenheim has been reduced to a shade of its former self, too. The only great old tracks still on the calendar more or less unaltered are Spa and Monza.
Next weekend, the Hungaro fucking Ring. Let’s hope it rains cats and dogs.
Students of F1 history should be aware of the major rule changes to the cars which took place at the end of 1993 season. By 1993, a whole lot of really impressive computer systems had made their way into Formula One cars - to wit…
(3) Computer controlled variable final differentials.
(4) Computer controlled “traction control” from standing starts and out of corners.
Now, with hindsight, that fateful crash at Tamburello was indeed a moment of tragic destiny for the F1 cars in 1994 - and here’s why. It seems that the movement back from “passive suspensions” to massive springs and physical dampers had created a massive “unknown” in terms of high speed cornering - and Tamburello was (at the time) part of F1’s longest section of “Wide Open Throttle” - that is - the driver held the car flat out for 24 seconds from the start/finish line all the way through Tamburello (which was a 310kmh sweeper) then onto the hairpin past the tifosi.
In previous years, namely 1987 and 1989, both Nelson Piquet and Gerhard Berger had gone off at high speed leading INTO Tamburello - and they were badly shaken up (including a brief gasoline fire in Berger’s Ferrari) - but other than that, they lived to fight another day.
But the detailed analysis shows that when Senna lost it at Tamburello - in the brief moment when he did have some grip as headed towards the wall - his car slowed from 309kph to 220kph before impact. The telemetary analysis shows that Senna was very aware of what had happened and had jumped on the brakes big time.
Hence, the question “what happened”, and how did the removal of “passive suspension” play it’s part?
The consensus seems to be this - the cars had raced 4 previous Grands Prix prior to Imola that year - but San Marino was the first race of the year which required the F1 cars to be setup in maximum “high speed” settings. Keen observers will note that in 1994 the F1’s rear wings were still permitted to be 1000mm from the ground - as averse to ever since at 900mm. At the Imola race, the rear wings and front wings were like fine knives - such was their thinness and desire to expedite maximum speed.
Combined with this was a giant “black hole” of knowledge base regarding how the vehicles were performing under “traditional springs and shocks” in race settings after at least 5 years of working with computer aided “hydraulic floating” suspensions.
For those of you who aren’t aware - the “passive suspension” system totally did away with springs, and pivots, and shock absorbers. The entire car was floating on hydraulic pumps which were driven by software and intricate solenoids.
Some of us might recall the remarkable footage of Nigel Mansell racing on the huge 160mph sweeper at Mexico in 1991. The “in car” camera shot was switching between Senna and Mansell - and Senna was still on a “springs shocks” car in his McLaren, whilst Mansell was floating on the “passively sprung” Williams. The differences in each car was astonishing. That particular corner was infamous for it’s roughness and bumps - but Mansell looked as though he was in a limousine, whilst Senna was being tossed like a rubber boat in a storm.
However, by 1992 and 1993, McLaren had perfected their “passive system” to the point where they were selling it to other teams as an “off the shelf” item - such was it’s state of perfection. Accordingly, EVERY team in the 1993 season was running on a “passive suspension” system, and it was Williams who in 1994 were actually hit hardest by the rule changes because their cars were actually the most “electronically state of the art” over the preceding 5 years.
So, historians will recall that Senna left the McLaren team after 6 years to follow his own persuit of glory - and moved in 1994 to the Williams team - who had built a car which was incredibly skitterish and twitchy in comparison to their previous 3 years. At the time, the cars were still allowed to be entirely flat bottomed - and the research showed that even a difference of just 1/8th of an inch in the cars ride height (in relation to the track surface) resulted in a difference of 10kph top end speed on the fastest of fast tracks.
Unfortunately for Senna, the only track testing that Williams had been able to do on high speed tracks during the previous winter was at Silverstone - which was a super smooth circuit. But Imola in contrast was firmly unchartered territory.
On the 7th lap of the fateful San Marino race, the field had done 3 laps under a pace car, and Senna’s car was still on a heavy fuel load. Leading into the start/finish straight he jumped the field and charged into Tamburello at full flight. His car was as twitchy as any had raced on in his entire career - and he hit the slight bump at the end of that mighty left hand sweeper and his undertray bottomed out. His front end let go, but his rear end didn’t. This caused his car to drive “straight on” and the telemetary shows that Senna chose to brake in a straight line rather than take any other course of action.
Sadly, when your number is up, your number is up. That same section of wall where both Piquet and Berger had had “massive offs” in the preceding years but lived to fight another day, well, on that day the Gods conspired against poor Ayrtton and the suspension upright impaled his helmet opening and death followed soon after.
It’s an irony that the F1 field’s most technologically advanced car in 1993 became that same field’s most twitchy and nervous car the following year in 1994. I suspect that if Imola had been raced later in the season with more “high speed data” under their belt, that Williams could have tuned their car to have not gone off under the circumstances but we’ll never know for sure.
