Este es uno de los mejores comentarios que he leído sobre Senna y Alonso, en la última entrada de James Allen. Está en inglés pero viene a decir que esta temporada de Alonso solo se puede comparar a la de Senna en 1993. Otro forero, más experto todavía, viene a decir que en esta época las exigencias y el nivel general de la competición es mayor y que en su criterio Alonso está por encima de Senna. Según él, los pilotos de esta época serían capaces de competir sin problemas con los mejores de antaño:
"
15. Posted By: Trent
Date: August 17th, 2012 @ 10:56 am
I think we were fortunate to see Senna in 1992-3, a time when he overwhelming did not have the best car. To me, these against-the-odds drives provide the most amazing memories of all; this is the special part of F1.
As you rightly point out, we are seeing the same with Alonso this year. I loved the team radio in Malaysia, Stefano Domenicalli describing (as only Italians can) the ‘most beautiful win’. That’s a feeling we only get when someone has delivered as the underdog. How great it is to witness such moments!
[Reply]
Martin Reply:
August 19th, 2012 at 5:55 am
I agree with you in general, but I do feel that there were some small contributing factors. The McLaren was a great chassis that year with a second best Ford engine, step behind the Benetton version. The Williams active suspension wasn’t known for its great feel, and this contributed to a fair bit of the performance advantage in the dry going away and making the first laps in the race and new tyres quite tricky.
Monaco would have been Schumacher’s win quite quite easily if reliability hadn’t got in the way. The car-engine-driver combo were a step ahead of Senna all weekend. It was a bit like 87 when Mansell should have won.
I think 93 was generally a step up in peformance from Senna. Beating Prost probably meant more to him than Mansell and as the car was closer than in 92, he was able to make a difference. In 92, Berger was closer than in 90 or 91 if I remember correctly.
Personally, I think the standard is higher now than in Piquet-Prost-Senna-Mansell era. As the cars are much closer in performance and passing is more difficult I believe the standards are greater. While Sennas’qualifying record is impressive compared to drivers since, the outcome was much less important. The refueling era and the high reliability gave an era where the drivers had to be at maximum concetration for the entire race, rather than conserving resources. The current cars have too much grip relative to their power, but the error rate is much reduced from Senna’s time. I remember working out that Senna had significant off-track moment/spin, car contact or crash in more than a quarter of his races.
Based on that, you wouldn’t be surprised to read that I rate Alonso ahead of Senna. I think the current level of the sport has pushed the current drivers to be the best we’ve ever seen – they need to be more skilled. I believe the guys at the top now would have coped with the power:grip of the 1980s turbos and pretty much everything else is at a greater level except the gear changing.
Cheers,
Martin
"
"
15. Posted By: Trent
Date: August 17th, 2012 @ 10:56 am
I think we were fortunate to see Senna in 1992-3, a time when he overwhelming did not have the best car. To me, these against-the-odds drives provide the most amazing memories of all; this is the special part of F1.
As you rightly point out, we are seeing the same with Alonso this year. I loved the team radio in Malaysia, Stefano Domenicalli describing (as only Italians can) the ‘most beautiful win’. That’s a feeling we only get when someone has delivered as the underdog. How great it is to witness such moments!
[Reply]
Martin Reply:
August 19th, 2012 at 5:55 am
I agree with you in general, but I do feel that there were some small contributing factors. The McLaren was a great chassis that year with a second best Ford engine, step behind the Benetton version. The Williams active suspension wasn’t known for its great feel, and this contributed to a fair bit of the performance advantage in the dry going away and making the first laps in the race and new tyres quite tricky.
Monaco would have been Schumacher’s win quite quite easily if reliability hadn’t got in the way. The car-engine-driver combo were a step ahead of Senna all weekend. It was a bit like 87 when Mansell should have won.
I think 93 was generally a step up in peformance from Senna. Beating Prost probably meant more to him than Mansell and as the car was closer than in 92, he was able to make a difference. In 92, Berger was closer than in 90 or 91 if I remember correctly.
Personally, I think the standard is higher now than in Piquet-Prost-Senna-Mansell era. As the cars are much closer in performance and passing is more difficult I believe the standards are greater. While Sennas’qualifying record is impressive compared to drivers since, the outcome was much less important. The refueling era and the high reliability gave an era where the drivers had to be at maximum concetration for the entire race, rather than conserving resources. The current cars have too much grip relative to their power, but the error rate is much reduced from Senna’s time. I remember working out that Senna had significant off-track moment/spin, car contact or crash in more than a quarter of his races.
Based on that, you wouldn’t be surprised to read that I rate Alonso ahead of Senna. I think the current level of the sport has pushed the current drivers to be the best we’ve ever seen – they need to be more skilled. I believe the guys at the top now would have coped with the power:grip of the 1980s turbos and pretty much everything else is at a greater level except the gear changing.
Cheers,
Martin
"