Vettel as good as Senna, says Ascanelli...

[Northstar]

Did I watch a different season that some of you guys because Vettel didn't have a dominant car except for qualifying(which really means that his engineers know how to set the car up for qualifying).

He didn't have competition? He was 3rd going into the finale, sounds to me he had some.

As for the Senna Vs. Vettel thing, it's pointless as there will never be a way to find the answer.

 

[McLaren]

I don't see it honestly. Vettel's good, but he's not this good yet.

 

[Conquerer]

I really wouldn't take this with much weight. People say things like this all the time. Berger said Alonso is as good as Senna a few weeks back. Just because Berger raced with Senna doesn't mean he knows best, just like Ascanelli.

Without a doubt Vettel is tremendously talented and is probably the quickest current driver in terms of raw pace. It's hard to compare him to Hamilton since the Red Bull is much better, but I'd still give him the edge. Hamilton is really close and then next best would be Alonso, who is more of a Prost style driver -- not blindingly quick but very reliable and calculating.

As for Vettel, I think a comparison to Schumacher would be more fitting than to Senna. Senna showed an extremely rare talent. In terms of raw speed and ability, no one was even close to him in his era or anywhere near his time. Prost proved a good rival because he had a different style and was extremely consistent and smart, but he was obviously nowhere as quick as Senna, even in the same car.

Schumacher was different. He was somewhat of a hybrid of Senna and Prost -- not as quick as Senna and not as consistent as Prost, but a good mix of both styles. He didn't always get poles even when he had the best car, but he made up for it in the race. Yes, he has more pole positions than Senna but in how many more races?

Vettel obviously has to prove to be more of a consistent reliable driver, but Schumacher was similar to this early in his career, especially in 1994 when he made many mistakes and even got banned from a few races, but he still managed to win the title. If Vettel can calm himself down a bit and be more in control when overtaking, he'll probably be quite similar to Schumacher. Without a doubt he still has at least a few more championships ahead of him.

 

[The Outlaw]

Did I watch a different season that some of you guys because Vettel didn't have a dominant car except for qualifying(which really means that his engineers know how to set the car up for qualifying).

RB's statistic of 15 poles out of 19 races shows just how strong and consistent a challenger the RB6's was pace wise, compared to Ferrari's tally of 2 poles and Mclaren with just 1 (Hulkenburg's was a complete anomaly). And in modern day F1, qualifying makes all the difference - not to mention that often times they had more race pace in hand when they were out front leading, they just had no need to show it.

A lot of RB's early to mid season superiority was due to their use of the EBD and retarded ignition mapping in qualy, something the other teams didn't catch onto until in the latter half of the season. This gave RB the couple of tenths they needed in qualy to be a strong favorites for the front row at nearly every venue in the first half of the season. Of course then came the flexi-wings/floor that just further improved upon their performance and already well executed design...which helped maintain that general untouchable air around the RB6.

Things have gotten so competitive in Formula 1 that even a fairly consistent ~ 3 tenth advantage a lap (some tracks they were well over .5 quicker) is considered to be a pretty massive advantage - especially when the two teams behind you are often scrapping it out between each other, continuously taking positions and points away from each other from race to race. I considered the RB so dominant this year simply because it had the upperhand in pace at just about all the venues, and all around it was the best car by a fair margin despite having the weakest powerplant. Simply put, I feel the RB6 was the clear car to have if you wanted to win the Championship. With that said, maybe you saw things differently though.

He didn't have competition? He was 3rd going into the finale, sounds to me he had some.

The points standings were close in the end due all of his reliability issues Vettel had. But the majority of the time, the on track competition wasn't much of a threat or challenge in the big picture - it was just a case of do a good job in qualy and you should have the race in the bag.

 

[ghostrider135]

Vettel will never be as good as Senna end of , In any terms hes not long taken a step up from being a rookie in the sport and hes only been able to stick the car on pole as many times as he has for the simple fact the RedBull is the fastest machine out there this season but he cant overtake for toffee and when he does manage it without crashing its not really impressive, I say give him a drive in one of Sennas many winning cars and see how he handles it, My guess not very well most likely he will crash

 

[daan]

Uhh, what did Senna do as well? I'm no trying to bring Senna down, a car is nothing without the driver, but the McLaren of that time was absolutely dominant and had no equal. Anywhere. They bloody won all but one race in 1988.

And what when he was driving the car in your avatar? Nowhere near the best, yet he still won races in it and was in championship contention most of the time. In 1993 he still won 5 races even though they were using a customer Ford V8 .

Get a clue, please. 💡

 

[Paulie]

Senna vs Vettel? Bah, I'm more interested in Vettel vs a new up and coming Australian talent, Ricciardo! In the rookie testing session a couple days after Abu Dhabi, he set a time in Webber's car 1.3sec faster than Vettel's fastest lap of qualifying during the Grand Prix. They estimate the track was 1.5sec faster at that time though due to the rubber laid down during the Grand Prix. It'd be great for Australia to have another driver in it so our hopes aren't always placed squarely on Webber's shoulders.

 

[Ardius]

As everyone has said, not really comparable. They are two totally different racing drivers from different eras with different personalities.
If anyone is like Senna these days its certainly Alonso or Hamilton. I'd say Vettel isn't really like any past drivers in particular.

 

[Famine]

No. Just no.

This needs restating, but in indigo.

No. Just... no.

 

[Matti_Dude]

Uhh, what did Senna do as well? I'm no trying to bring Senna down, a car is nothing without the driver, but the McLaren of that time was absolutely dominant and had no equal. Anywhere. They bloody won all but one race in 1988.

Senna beat Alain Prost in his first season with McLaren, and Prost was already a two time world champion. I would not rate Webber anywhere near that level of quality, he just happened to find himself in the quickest car. If it were Alonso or Hamilton that he beat then I would fully respect Vettel, but I have never rated Webber as one of the best, and the same goes with Jenson. Sure Vettel is very quick in qualifying and from the front he can lead a race very well, but his conversion rate from pole position is nowhere near as good as it should be and his overtaking skills are questionable. In my opinion he has a heck of a long way to go before he can even be compared with Senna. I wouldn't even compare Hamilton / Alonso with Senna.

 

[Peter]

And what when he was driving the car in your avatar? Nowhere near the best, yet he still won races in it and was in championship contention most of the time. In 1993 he still won 5 races even though they were using a customer Ford V8 .

Get a clue, please. 💡

The Ford V8 wasn't exactly a bad engine, was it? And didn't the Lotus have a Honda engine at the time as well?

 

[G.T.Ace]

Did I watch a different season that some of you guys because Vettel didn't have a dominant car except for qualifying(which really means that his engineers know how to set the car up for qualifying).

He didn't have competition? He was 3rd going into the finale, sounds to me he had some.

As for the Senna Vs. Vettel thing, it's pointless as there will never be a way to find the answer.

Thread could've been closed after this.

 

[KobayashiFan]

Thread could've been closed after this.

If a moderator feels this is getting out of hand and feels they need to close it, that is fine by me...

On another note, I have found the varying opinions here extremely interesting.

 

[Boundary Layer]

If a moderator feels this is getting out of hand and feels they need to close it, that is fine by me...

Actually, he's saying that Justin made a great point.

 

[G.T.Ace]

Yeah, didn't "want" this thread to get closed.
It's just that Justin summed it up perfectly.

 

[Greycap]

He won because of his ultimately superior car (Just like Button did in 2009).

Like Senna did in 1988, 1990 and 1991, like Mansell did in 1992, like Prost did in 1993, like Schumacher did in 1994 (and highly likely wouldn't have if Senna had lived), not to mention 1995 and 2000-2004, like Hill did in 1996, like Villeneuve did in 1997, like Häkkinen did in 1998 and 1999, like Alonso did in 2005 and 2006, like Räikkönen did in 2007 and like Hamilton did in 2008.

Yeah. It's all in the car in this case, and this case alone.

 

[daan]

The Ford V8 wasn't exactly a bad engine, was it?

It was 2 specifications down on the one in the back of the Benetton, and it was far from the best engine.

And didn't the Lotus have a Honda engine at the time as well?

Nope, in 1986 it was a Renault and he was in chamionship contention right down to the last race. Even though the Williams and McLaren were faster, Senna sat on pole for 8 out of the 16 races (Vettel only got slightly better average than that, 10 from 19, in clearly the fastest car). In 1987 it was a Honda, but the Lotus chassis was nowhere near as good as the Williams and they were having teething troubles with active suspension, yet he still won 2 races against the dominant Williams.

 

[Only_in_f1]

I love how you all say 'Well Seb's had the dominate car all season.'

Anyone care to have a look at the 1988 results? That McLaren must have been an utter DOG to drive...

 

[Seismica]

Uhh, what did Senna do as well? I'm no trying to bring Senna down, a car is nothing without the driver, but the McLaren of that time was absolutely dominant and had no equal. Anywhere. They bloody won all but one race in 1988.

Well;

Vettel has been relatively unchallenged due to the superior machinery he has been given, that's why a lot of people still feel he has a lot to prove. Just because you can grab pole time and time again and control a race in a clearly dominant/easy to drive car doesn't mean it's some truly impressive feat.

Couldn't have put it better myself. He almost lost the championship partly owing to his mistakes. Crashing into Webber at Turkey, crashing into Button at Spa, Falling asleep behind the safety car in Hungary etc. You can't really give reliability as an excuse either, as his main title contenders (namely Alonso, Hamilton and Webber) have had their fair share of reliability problems too. The Red Bull has been 0.5+ seconds ahead at some circuits, he should have walked this championship.

I think that Alonso is the only driver currently on the grid who is anywhere near Ayrton Senna as an all-rounder. Hamilton is well on his way but he still makes a fair few mistakes when under pressure, even though he has matured a great deal. I'm not saying Senna didn't make mistakes, but even the top drivers in F1 are still a fair bit off.

Vettel's career is still young, give it 3-4 years and we should be able to make a better judgement. But personally I think the likes of Alonso, Hamilton, Kubica and even possibly Kobayashi will outshine him, providing Red Bull aren't consistently dominant like they have been for the past year and a half.

 

[Stotty]

Senna, Schumi, Prost... these are the class field of F1 over the past 25 years.

To put Vettel at the same level as the driver who is widely regarded as the best there has ever been on the back on one season, where he crashed most time he was under pressure, is PMSL funny.

He may be able to run fast on his own, but he's not even in the same class as Alonso or Hamilton when it comes to racing, never mind the true legends of the sport.

 

[Sureboss]

He's almost impossible to catch when out in front. From that respect he is very, very good. But he's yet to show he can overtake like the others around him (apart from Webber of course).

 

[Greycap]

You can't really give reliability as an excuse either, as his main title contenders (namely Alonso, Hamilton and Webber) have had their fair share of reliability problems too.

Quoting myself here because I've already done my homework properly. I recommend it for you too.

Alonso retired once, because of a crash on his own. Webber retired twice, both crashes on his own. Hamilton retired three times, once with gearbox trouble and twice because of crashes caused by his own eagerness to pass where there was no room. Vettel retired three times, once because of a crash (the Turkey incident), once because of a loose wheel nut (in the lead) and once when his engine blew (in the lead). Add to that the exhaust problem at Bahrain - again in the lead - and he's indeed had a good deal less luck than the others.

You can dislike Vettel as much as you like but at least say it openly instead of trying to make him look worse than he is. Apparently a lot of people don't like seeing Alonso and Hamilton being left to the dust but life sucks at times and Vettel won the title with a fair fight, something that can't be said for many other drivers in the 21st century.

 

[Famine]

Vettel won the title with a fair fight, something that can't be said for many other drivers in the 21st century.

Many people have opined that Red Bull pitted Webber at Abu Dhabi knowing that they would take him out of the title race by doing so and that Alonso would have to cover Webber's stop and that would take him out of the title race too, once again using Webber to promote Vettel's championship chances.

 

[Matti_Dude]

Like Senna did in 1988, 1990 and 1991, like Mansell did in 1992, like Prost did in 1993, like Schumacher did in 1994 (and highly likely wouldn't have if Senna had lived), not to mention 1995 and 2000-2004, like Hill did in 1996, like Villeneuve did in 1997, like Häkkinen did in 1998 and 1999, like Alonso did in 2005 and 2006, like Räikkönen did in 2007 and like Hamilton did in 2008.

Yeah. It's all in the car in this case, and this case alone.

That is completely wrong in my opinion. Getting 15 poles in a season shows that it is a dominant car. Yes in 1988 Senna had a dominant car but he also had a double world champion team mate. In 1990 Prost's Ferrari was probably as quick as the McLaren, but it was Senna's talent which saw him take the WDC and the same again in 1991 against Mansell's Williams.

In 1992 Mansell did find himself in a completely dominant car which won him the championship and the same happened to Prost in 93, although not to such a large extent. Arguably Schumacher would not have had a dominant car that season had Senna have lived but we will never know. Schumacher deserved his title in 95 as many people rated him as the best driver in F1 at the time and rightly so, it was not just the car alone which made it a dominant season. Hill and Villeneuve both had superior cars yes which is why some people question their talent as a driver and if they are worthy of being a world champion but it was the car which won them those titles.

I could carry on but what I'm saying is that just because a driver won a WDC it does not mean that they had a dominant car like the RB6 was this year. Getting 15 poles in a season is very rare and shows just how much faster the car was over the rest of the competition. Vettel outclassed Webber for raw pace on the majority of occasions. I have never rated Webber as one of the top drivers in the field, although his consistency kept him in the title race this season. What I'm trying to say is that Vettel and Red Bull should have wrapped up both championships with ease but instead thanks to some reliability issues and driver errors from Vettel they left it to the penultimate and final race.

Greycap:
Alonso retired once, because of a crash on his own. Webber retired twice, both crashes on his own. Hamilton retired three times, once with gearbox trouble and twice because of crashes caused by his own eagerness to pass where there was no room. Vettel retired three times, once because of a crash (the Turkey incident), once because of a loose wheel nut (in the lead) and once when his engine blew (in the lead). Add to that the exhaust problem at Bahrain - again in the lead - and he's indeed had a good deal less luck than the others.

Hamilton also suffered that wheel rim failure on the penultimate lap of the Spanish grand prix which cost him a 2nd place. Vettel also retired in the Belgian grand prix after crashing into Button (whilst trying to overtake him).

 

[Seismica]

Quoting myself here because I've already done my homework properly. I recommend it for you too.


You can dislike Vettel as much as you like but at least say it openly instead of trying to make him look worse than he is. Apparently a lot of people don't like seeing Alonso and Hamilton being left to the dust but life sucks at times and Vettel won the title with a fair fight, something that can't be said for many other drivers in the 21st century.

Those retirements don't take into account Alonso's engine failure in Malaysia and Hamilton's wheel rim failure in Spain. Simply because they had completed a certain % of the race distance.

Vettel's retirements exclude Spa where he finished out of the points because of several mistakes he made during the race (He didn't just collide with Button, he also collided with one of the Force indias).

I never said he didn't deserve the title. I never said he wasn't a good driver. Just that Alonso and Hamilton are better than him, and if they had been in the same car Vettel would have lost the title. Hopefully things will be more even among the top teams next year, and hopefully reliability won't bite them in the behind either.

 

[Conquerer]

I love how you all say 'Well Seb's had the dominate car all season.'

Anyone care to have a look at the 1988 results? That McLaren must have been an utter DOG to drive...

Yeah, cause he had such a terrible teammate too. I mean, come on, Prost only won two world championships by that time. It must have been like taking candy from a baby.

There's obviously no doubt he had the best car that year but just look at the way he handled being put up against the best racing driver in the world at that time. He scored 13 pole positions in 16 races, outqualifying Prost 14 times, and only once not being on the front row (3rd at Silverstone, both Ferraris ahead). Furthermore, he set a new record for wins in a season with 8 WHILE in the same team with Prost.

And even then you can look at Monza that year, where Schlesser took him out at the chicane. Senna was always aggressive when overtaking backmarkers, but the fool locked up his brakes, ran wide, and then cut right in front of Senna. Had that not happened, McLaren would have won every single race that year and Senna would have had 9 wins to Prost's 7. There's also Monaco too where he had a 55 second lead with 12 laps to go, but of course that was a pure driving mistake and was all his fault. But it's very interesting to look at how much he intimidated Prost that year.

McLaren's Coordinator at that time, Jo Ramirez, talked about qualifying in Spa that year and Senna got the pole with a really quick time and came in to sit in a corner of the garage. Prost couldn't believe how quick the time was and asked Jo where he's faster than him. Senna looked at him standing with Prost and gave him a wink, knowing he had gotten to him mentally.

 

[Only_in_f1]

Not being funny, but I never sided with a driver. I merely stated my amusement at people saying Vettel can't be as good as Senna as he had the best car.

Anyway, I think Mr.Ascanelli is in a better position to judge than you or I. At the end of the day its all opinion.

 

[Ardius]

Vettel could be as good as Senna, but he is yet to prove it. Vettel is certainly as fast as Senna was.
Senna was more than just a good qualifier who would take off into the distance. Vettel is only this.

 

[Seismica]

Vettel could be as good as Senna, but he is yet to prove it. Vettel is certainly as fast as Senna was.
Senna was more than just a good qualifier who would take off into the distance. Vettel is only this.

Again, it has been summed up quite well.

Vettel is fast, no doubt about it.

But Senna wasn't just known for his pace...

 

[UN_OC]

Can't believe this thread still has life in it.


Senna was brilliantly fast and a brilliant mischiveas driver (I say that as a Prost fan), and Vettel is only fast and lacks racecraft, an ability to overtake cars, even those slower, and has seems to have a magnetic in his car destined to be combined with the side of any other car.



Yes, The redbull is overrated, it was fastest in quali, but when the race order is usually quali due to lack of overtaking it does help alot. Also the car wasn't exactly slow and easy to pass in the pitts.

Bahrain - Red bull best
Australia - 1-2 on grid so same
Malaysia as above
China - as abnove
Spain - yes
Monaco - yes
Turkey - yes (vettel was able to leap frog hamilton in the pits with outlap/inlap so he was atleast as fast as hamilton in a mclaren)
Canada - 2-3 on quali, so fast but not fastest, lost out to montreal specialist hamilton
Europe - yes, but not as much
GB - yes
Germany - not so.. mixed it with others
Hungary - hell yes
Spa - webber got it on pole should have stayed or dropped to 2nd or 3rd worst. So fast yes, not fastest
Monza - no, although webber wasn't that far behind
Singapore - mixing it at the front
Japan - yes
Korea - yes
Brazil - apart from freakish hulkenberg yes, and in race def yes, atleast as fast as ferrari, probs slightly faster
Abu Dhabi - mixing it with the mclarens, although arguably the mclaren of hamilton was indeed faster


That being said, it doesn't matter if the car was massively faster than 2nd or only .2 seconds faster, it is still 25 for the winner and 18 for 2nd place.

Vettel, like the others made many mistakes throughout the year hence why he only just managed to grab despite having the best car at almost all of the tracks.

Added to that, if Vettel is as fast as Senna, then Webber, who is just out of his prime was probably faster than Senna when he (webber) was in his prime. And as fast as Webber is, I wouldn't say he is as fast as Senna.



Ardius has hit the nail on the head, senna is known for his great overtakes, pulling out many cars over the first lap, Vettel has yet to pass that many cars in a whole race.