The Misguided Mythology of Ayrton Senna | Hacker News Reader

The Misguided Mythology of Ayrton Senna

roadandtrack.com

84 pointsluu68 comments

I used to kart obsessively when I was younger (I had a four figure annual subscription to a track), and I was brutally competitive. I didn't really care how old a person was, or their gender, if someone posed even the slightest challenge to me, I would literally get obsessed with beating them. If a session ended when I was in second, I would spend the entire break day dreaming in my head about the up-coming race and where I would position myself to overtake, think about which turns I'm faster in so I know how much far away from them to be so I'm in the right position to overtake *.

This is not the result of idolizing Senna, or even really ever caring about him at all. There's something about the anonymous nature of racing that can really heighten the aggressiveness inherent in competition. I'm normally a super chill person, but a few competitive laps kind of turns me into a monster (I don't get like this in SCCA events, where you are on the track solo).

* Passing is more difficult when skill levels go up. Generally there is one, maybe two turns where it's possible to pass a good driver on a course. And following a slower driver too closely through a turn can cause you to sap speed because you either have to brake or move off of the optimal drive line to accommodate them.

I really hope to be able to race cars at some point in the future, because I completely understand that feeling even from simracing (No karting because pandemic).

I have done both and I truly feel Sim racing is better. Orders of magnitudes cheaper and safer. The only thing I miss is the smells and the red state friendship bonding in the paddock. I don't miss the close relationship with my mechanic and the wrecks

I've only done karting, not sim racing, so I have a question for you. Do you get the same feeling from simracing as what the grandparent comment describes?

Asking because I can 100% relate to what they are talking about in terms of competitiveness and the rush during the actual race, and then daydreaming about just repetitively perfecting those laps on your own alone. All while being absolutely calm and relaxed in real life outside of that.

With that in mind, I am curious if simracing will satisfy that same rush. I know that it won't be fully 1-to-1, especially because I won't be investing into a pneumatic sim chair that simulates actual physical aspects of racing. But I don't think that's what makes the rush feel real for me. Hence why I feel lost as to whether I should actually invest into a simracing setup or just save myself money and time by not bothering (in case it doesn't give that same feeling).

Simracing for me isn't really about immersion but rather the knowledge that I'm actually racing other people taking it seriously.

It's the same as DCS for me - I like learning the systems and tactics because I will not ever be able to fly a jet because of my eyes.

Even playing novice series on low graphics in iRacing is preferable to the latest Gran Turismo or Forza. The field of human drivers racing seriously makes a totally different experience. The experience of strategically following another driver for multiple laps until they make just enough of a stress-induced error to let you pass is unique to the sim community.

Based on yours and the parent's reply, I am sold. I don't care about immersion as much as I care about that feel of rush and competition, and it seems like that part specifically is addressed quite well with simracing.

And I agree w/r to Forza. I played it, i liked the game, but it was clearly an arcade racer, not what I am looking for here. It didn't give me any sort of feelings I was looking for, but it was a pretty fun game on its own.

On that note, thanks for help to both of you, I will start researching simracing setups now.

Pretty much any Logitech wheel will do to start- upgrade later.

This video series was the single most helpful thing for me to get started: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqsKm8irA7U

And way less motion sickness

There is something about cars, maybe it's the fact you can't look each other in the eye, it makes minor mistakes into major incidents physiologically. It's why people road rage but they don't get bothered if someone bumps them on the pavement...

Wait. Is that it? The article felt like it was off to a good start and I wanted to read more and learn more about the other bits of Senna away from the documentary (which was really good but does mythologize him) and then it sort of just ended abruptly. Is this the start of a series or part of a longer essay?

It's Road & Track, don't get your hopes up too high.

I got the same. I disagree with a few core points - I think the doc goes at good lenghts to show that Senna's piloting was not always "healthy" for others or himself! So I was curious to read in-depth arguments. And I found none.

If the argument is that Senna's idolized figure is unwarranted - why? Otherwise, whats the point of describing it in such terms? To my recollection Prost's opinion that Senna was too temerary and downright arrogant in "wanting to humiliate" him is _completely justified_ in the doc's narrative. So where is this mary-sueness that the article implies?

If Senna's relationship with Prost was mischaracterized - How? Prost is quoted agreeing but no info is given. This is especially important because we know for a fact that Balestre ruled in Prost's favor in the case that is highlighted in the doc.

I can't even begin to judge some of the other claims or opinions on this piece because they are completely without substance. Too bad - seems like there is a good discussion in there.

Perhaps I'll find it in the Hacker News comment section unrelated to the article itself.

> too temerary

By the way, the best English equivalent of temerário/temerario is "temerarious". [Edit: per your reply, I should also point out that "temerarious" is an extremely uncommon English word too; it's just that "temerary" may not even exist at all.]

Thanks - I'm not particularly stressed about sounding 100% idiomatic as long as I get the point across (and am not flat out wrong). In this case I think I got the term from an Italian friend, so it might relate to some other word in italian. Also neither of temerário/temerario are common at all in Portuguese or Spanish, so I the idiomatic term the other way around, in the expression I used, should be 'imprudente' I think

I think the most idiomatic English terms to criticize someone who is incautious or too eager to take big risks spontaneously would probably be "reckless" or "rash". :-)

(In English, "imprudent" refers more often to actions or decisions rather than to people.)

Senna was a VERY interesting figure. For whatever reason, the press eats up his virtuosity. The big incident where I feel he was on the right side of history was his should-have-been-a-win at the Suzuka GP in 1989: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1989_Japanese_Grand_Prix and his mistreatment at the hands of Jean-Marie Balestre. According to wikipedia, Balestre admitted it:

"Years later, after leaving the presidency of FIA, Balestre admitted to having acted to benefit Prost in 1989."[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Marie_Balestre

Having said that, Prost was the better racer, and Senna benefits from the halo effect of having died in his prime. He's got some great quotes, and he was definitely mistreated at times which increased his standing as a folk hero, but he was outclassed at almost every step by Prost.

> Prost was the better racer,

That is a bold claim. Data [1] shows that when they were teammates, Senna won more races and far more pole positions. Prost got more points, podiums and fastest laps. From looking at the record, it would seem that Prost got the majority of his fastest laps and podiums when Senna was already out of the race, crashing out or retiring to a mechanical issues. I believe that if they raced in cars with reliability level we see in 2010s, Senna would likely be ahead.

[1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prost%E2%80%93Senna_rivalry

Prost is statistically a huge outlier in terms of reliability and not crashing, however. Senna was definitely faster at peak but Prost was inhuman in other ways.

There were some Senna DNFs due to fuel exhaustion, at least in some years

Prost was boringly good but had his limits.

The defining moment that differentiated the two was Prost refusing to race in heavy rain at Adelaide '89. Senna was obviously better in those conditions as that's how he drove. If the car wasn't on the edge of sliding or twitching under accelaration he wasn't going fast enough.

Prost was measured and did what was necessary to win. Senna wanted to win and win well.

Sounds like Senna raced to win each race, while Prost raced to win the championship. If you aim for the latter, you sometimes prefer second place over a 50% chance of winning/50% chance of retirement.

And that is where the mythology originates - one is racing for the thrill of racing and victory, the other racing “strategically”.

The old system of scoring points allowed for some occasional retirements: only 11 best results out of 16 races counted towards the championship. These days all results count, and the difference between 1st and 2nd place is smaller (9 or 10 points vs 6 before, 25 vs 18 now), so drivers are less incentivized to take a risky pass for the win. That is one part of why Formula 1 is so boring now.

The other part is a Draconian ban on in-season testing, which makes it far harder for lagging teams to catch up: previously teams could develop their cars mid-season, now whoever has the best car in March wins the championship.

I am not a big Senna fan but I don’t think he was outclassed by Prost. In my view it was pretty close with Senna having a slight edge overall and a huge advantage in qualifying

And the rain

Senna constantly beat him when they were on the same team.

The facts disagree.

In 1988, when Senna and Prost were on the same team, Prost won 7 out of 16 races.

You might want to read a bit more about 1988. Prost won 7 out of 16 races, but Ayrton Senna won 8/16 with 13 pole positions and the World Championship.

So, the facts agree.

Senna won 50%, Prost won 43%. Senna won the championship by 3 points over Prost.

Explain to me how that falls under the definition of “constantly” beat.

LOL I like how you tried to mislead everyone by just putting Prost's stats alone. Then you argue it wasn't constantly. If your driver was better head to head you wouldn't have to do that. Long live Senna and his flame to win.

/Sigh

Yeah, I was the one trying to mislead people and shifting the goalposts.

You said “Senna constantly beat him”.

I simply pointed out that that is clearly not true.

Unlike you, I’m not biased. When I was into F1, I was a huge fan of both drivers. Senna was an amazing talent, but it’s disingenuous to suggest that he had no competition.

Why did you only cite Prost’s win rate? At best, that’s a highly misleading use of statistics.

I wasn’t trying to claim that Prost was better than Senna.

I was disputing the obviously bullshit claim that “when they were on the same team, Senna constantly beat him”.

They were both amazing drivers and 88 was fantastic for how tight it was.

Oh geez, I'm an idiot. Sorry friend.

Prost and Senna were evenly matched – that's why the racing between them was so great, and why the rivalry was so pitched. Senna was faster than Prost in qualifying and over a single lap, and vastly better in rainy conditions. Prost had better race-craft and was more consistent lap-over-lap, race-over-race. They were both otherworldly.

Maybe Prost was technically better, I do not agree but maybe a case can be made, but Senna was (or maybe appeared to be is the better concept) more talented.

Senna was the rockstar of F1 and there hasn't been another one.

An F1 fan at the time, since his death I haven't watched a single race. Enough said...

I used to watch F1 a lot and I believe it's very hard to compare drivers because the machine, team and the setup is a big part of the outcome. Having said that, when it rains, Senna was always the best and incredible to watch and everything else. If it starts to rain and the yellow/green helmet starts to overtake one by one, after a couple of races you realize that there's something in him that no other have. Might not make him the best, but definitely the most enjoyable to watch.

I stopped watching it after he died.

Same, that was the last F1 race I ever watched.

I still have a sketch I did for my school art class from a photo I took of his 98T rounding the hairpin at Adelaide in '96 during qualifying.

I can't find a way to talk about Senna in a more human and realistic way without feeling I'm minimizing his "greatness".

Maybe only those who lived in his era can understand who he was and that's about it. Everything else is a nice story created by professionals.

He was a guy way above average in a particular point in time when the cars were brutal and you could still crash them half the time and not get fired. ( But you still would get a lot of shit and better deliver something fast.. or else)

Make no mistake every single F1 driver has an huge ego and they bully each other to oblivion. These mental games exist since the beginning and most of them work like an infection, one little cut and they got you. They were different drivers but also Piquet, Berger, Lamy, Tarquini, Alesi and so on. They all were products of that era.

Prost was less "spectacular" but not "cerebral" to the point the media makes him, they exaggerate the differences in order to sell the story and EVERYBODY involved in F1 reaped the rewards of this. Kind of like Messi vs Cristiano Ronaldo.

Finally, yes Jean-Marie Balestre was a c*#t, but everybody involved with Le Mans can tell how the French operate :), But what about Max Mosley? and do we need to talk about Bernie Ecclestone? F1 was ALWAYS a cesspool of jocks, rich playboys and sleazy bastards. The "people" are invited to watch and that's it.

> Maybe only those who lived in his era can understand who he was and that's about it. Everything else is a nice story created by professionals.

This seems to imply that the myth of Senna's greatness was created after his death, which I don't think is true. The myth was already there while he was alive. People worshipped Senna and many considered him the best driver in history of F1. A lot of this is due to his natural character as a good showman, high charisma and a sense of what people would like.

However, a part of that myth was true. He did have an incredible ability to turn a certain loss into a win: - Winning a race after his gears failed. Once, his car got stuck in the highest gear, couldn't switch to a lower one and still won - Consistently winning in Monaco, one of the most difficult racing track - Consistently winning in shitty, rainy conditions

I'd say it's more those things that created a legend out of him. Always being perceived as an underdog, and he often was, and still managing to win.

Agreed. He was a legend at the time.

My favorite Senna story is that an Austrian flag was found in the cockpit of his crashed Williams. It was traditional for the winner to circulate on the victory lap waving their national flag. Senna was Brazilian, so why an Austrian flag? Earlier that weekend, Austrian F1 driver Roland Ratzenberger died in a crash during qualifying for the San Marino Grand Prix. Senna had planned to parade with the Austrian flag in his honor.

Not only ability, but willingness to improve that wasn't really seen at others. His prowess in racing in the rain is a side effect of him losing due to rain early in his career and then just completely obsessing over it to the point whenever it would rain he would stop whatever he was doing, pick up his kart and drive until he couldn't anymore.

This revisionism where he wasn't a "myth" back then is pure bullshit, people were revering him on and off the tracks. He was very adept at marketing and selling his image and this was visible into how he usually got what he wanted even if the top brass on F1 didn't, as he did have the star power to do it.

He was also reckless out of races, Brazilian journalists and the main PT-BR narrator for F1 races have multiple stories of him driving insanely fast in Europe with them to the point they though they'd die in an accident with him.

>Maybe only those who lived in his era can understand who he was and that's about it. Everything else is a nice story created by professionals.

Even if you were alive then, your understanding of the guy was still mediated by professionals, and now it is mediated by the distance of time. Usually the formation of a legend is already well on its way during that person's lifetime.

I was born in 1977, so Senna and Prost were at their peak when I was quite young. They were both giants. Here is another article about the two, written from Alain Prost’s perspective:

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/senna-prost-bitter-feud-h...

They were two complicated people, competing in a complicated sport where milliseconds make a difference. And they were both absolutely beautiful drivers, masters of their own unique styles.

I don't think Senna had an unusually "speed at all costs" attitude. He was known for arguing that tracks enforce safe practices because racing drivers will inherently choose a faster route if it's less safe, therefore the fastest route needs to be a safe one. But that was hardly unique to him - he wasn't even the first driver to die at Imola in '94. And the only death since then, after major safety reforms, was a freak accident under a yellow flag. Other serious injuries have been exceptionally rare. Clearly he had a point.

Like most F1 winners, Senna also had a shady side in the sports, despite his raw talent. This is a necessary requirement to stay in F1. For example, we now know that he had agreements with Tobacco companies that meant we wouldn't be challenged by any colleague (would be #1 driver in the Team) [1]. He also devised agreements with Honda to have a leg over Proust (as stated in the article). We know some of this information thanks to the opening of Tobacco companies files', which describe how they spent money in the 80s, and how they structured contracts with leading drivers like Senna.

https://www1.folha.uol.com.br/internacional/en/sports/2013/0...

That stuff is pretty normal and pretty much a requirement to be a champion. I don’t think there ever has been a team that had two competitive drivers where this ended well.

This came after he was constantly undermined when he entered F1. Schumacher had a similar thing over Barichello.

Not really, his contract with tobacco companies started since his Lottus period (before any F1 championship).

Human brains really love narratives and any documentary requires a good one for it to be interesting. Reality however is not some grand easily digestible narrative. For this reason documentaries are always misleading in some way. Reality must be bent to fit into the documentary form.

Prost and Senna were the classic manga blue and red characters. They played their roles well, to the end.

That said, as a teenager, F1 was this weird motorsport that played live on Sunday afternoon, that my uncles enjoyed to watch after a family lunch. The siesta sport. As a French, I don’t remember Alain Prost or Ayrton Senna being comparable sport stars to football, tennis or even cycling celebrities in the late eighties.

I recall watching the San Marino GP in '94 with my dad, who was going through chemo at the time. He broke down in tears when he saw the crash. There isn't much I remember about my dad, I was 6 when he passed, but that memory will always be with me.

Say what you will about Senna, but I can't watch that movie without tearing up a little.

There are so many stories of Senna and Prost, maybe what seprated them was the level of commitment to win regardless of the cost.

People talk Prost down but, he was staggeringly good. He once said that he didn't like using kerbs, when other drivers would be smashing off them and gain time he would avoid them on purpose to see if he could be as quick without. He also said that he thought sliding around was boring, it is far more intersting to see how quick you can go by being smooth. He once said that he didn't care if people over took him as he always knew he could overtake them back. Testing for the 93 season Prost on his comeback was driving around 2.5 seconds off the pace. His team were really worried... Come the first race he puts the car on pole.

There are so many of these stories. Can you imagine Senna giving up any advantage to win?

Top Gear UK did a tribute to Senna, its a somewhat balanced view of him: https://youtu.be/9U_K76vPGYo

It was also the first I heard of Senna.

Prost was one of Sennas pall bearers. They had a strong rivalry, but there was definite respect, if not outright friendship.

Though short, that was a really nicely written piece. As a major fan of R&T since the 60's, I've lamented the magazine's long decline. It's great to find writing talent like Kyle Kinard planting a flag there once again.

Every sport is like that, have you seen fights breakout over nothing in street basketball? Maybe Ayrton Senna exemplifies that style of competitiveness in racing but there is no shortage of ambition and recklessness on other sports.

Ayrton character reminds me of Steve Jobs

I would say Prost reminds me of Steve Jobs and Senna of Gates / Microsoft?

Prost - calculated and careful / never to show emotion.

Senna - shoot from the hip and fight like hell?

I'm just young enough to never see them race on tv (or in person) but loved the movie when it came out.

Not familiar with Prost and Senna, but your description reminds me of Borg and McEnroe.

Or Schumacher/Hamilton.

Replace Hamilton with any organic race driver and then put that name in when you hear Webber complain about the dangers posed by this type of driver.

Yes you can be dangerous for its own sake, Juan Pablo, but when you're piloting a missile, everything is a target.

This is why Reubens will always a star. He had a nice shiny red missile, but didn't point it at people on purpose.

More gentleman in the sport would make it safer.

I disagree, you need to understand deeply their psychology. Ayrton and Steve were similar on how they coped with obstacles in life. Both were sometimes very abusing. A kind of self entitlement behavior because they know they know better! Edit: and also the uncompromising attitude!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com