Hacker News Reader

Comment by joncrane | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

> 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 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.

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 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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com