Alonso v Massa

Hmmm one word answer for you: consistently.

Thus yes Alonso had a shocker at Montreal, but that was out of the norm. While Massa is always hopeless in the rain.

I actually think Montoya could drive ... but made too many silly mistakes.
Pete

 

Well, he was fine in the first part of the race.

 

Massa was useless, look at HUngary last yr. but, last weekend's race, he did some brave stuff, and also, had a great drive IMO. if Massa was useless, he could have lost it at the start of the race, instead it was Kimster who missed the pitlane....

i don't understand the double standard here. it seems to me, lots of people here would like to see Massa fare badly. w.out any explanation, some of the people here straight pointed at the fact that 'he's useless' in the rain, and thats why he lost the race, and it wasn't because of the car, etc.

where did all of this come from? it was Massa who was driving the car, and not anybody here.

sure, i'd be the 1st to admit that Fred's skills in the rain is much better than Massa, and thats why he's a WDC. but what i don't understand here is, most people here just doesn't seem to recognize the fact that he's improved and he's Ferrari's leading hope for the WDC this year.

 

Take a look at Jackie Stewart's laps in the rain at Nurburgring and see how much faster he was than the rest of the field. Schumacher's speed that day in Spain is very impressive but nowhere near the achievements of Stewart or Senna at Donington.

Schumacher, after all, was passed by Senna that day...

 

Not saying that you are being critical of Senna but there were plenty of guys on that grid at Donington with less powerful cars, none of them passed 5 guys on the opening lap.

Senna won 5 times that season in the "down on power" McLaren, not all of those races in the wet.

 

Most drivers win when they are on the pole too. Senna lost about 1/2 of the races in which he started from pole. Not a sign of a great driver. Many people read a lot more into Senna than was actually there. Yes he was good but thats it. Someone on here said that if he had not died that MS would still be chasing his records.....Dont think so...Senna was 34 when he passed and the rumors were that he would only race 2 years more at most.

 

and why is that? The Ferrari that year was the worst car, and had the worst handling Schumi has ever driven. so why it can't be compared?

 

Also if we are allowed to use the KIMI excuse......It was Michaels first year in the Ferrari and he was not yet used to the car.

 

and yet he still had a great race. Kimi OTOH, missed the pits...

 

I didn't say it wasn't a great drive. I simply don't believe it was as dominating a performance as Senna or Stewart phad on their day.

Autosport had an article about a year ago on the top drives, Donington was ranked #1 and (IIRC) Stewart's race was either #3 or #4.

 

ok u cleared things up a bit. but still, i think personally, thats a personal opinion. for me, i think it was the best performance i've ever seen, given the circumstances.

 

None of those drives who were down on power were close to Senna's abilities. While it is true that Schumacher was also in a car powered by Ford, but it was still early in his long career, and the lack of experiences is critical in adverse conditions. There are too many variables and factors that comes in play in F1, in the rain, anything can happen. There has been countless GP winners who only won in the rain because they were at the right place and the right time. For example, Jensen Button's maidan win last year came in a rain race.


The Late Aryton Senna was no doubt a great driver, IMO, the best of his era and one of the all-time greatest. All I am saying that is everything is relative, and that as impressive as Senna was in that race, he was not driving to win the title that year and had nothing to lose and was more able to take risks. Again, he was no doubt a great driver, but I just wouldn't judge his career by one race as he has done plenty of other things that are more impressive to secure his place among the greatest of all-time.

 

Your understanding of F1 history is a joke.

To say that Senna was not a great driver because he lost half the races for which he started on pole (if that is even correct which, coming from you, is highly suspect) is utterly ridiculous. You are aware that he sat on pole a record 65 times, don't you? You are aware that at the time he set the record for poles, the #2 driver on that list had only 33, don't you? To argue that Senna was a good, but not great, driver is ludicrous, to use the example that you did is moronic.

Oh, and by the way, Senna was not on pole at Donington. He was behind Prost, Hill and Schumacher. Not that you have ever been inconvenienced by facts...

 

Schumacher's run in Spain also made Autosport's list, IIRC, and deservedly so. I think it is one of his best drives, too.

 

I believe Donington was the 3rd race of the season and that Prost and Senna each had one win leading up to the race. While exectations were that the Williams would dominate that season, I am not sure that Senna felt he was out of the running just yet.

That being said, Senna always did take more risks than Prost.

 

Just an aside but Schumacher's Ford was the latest version whereas McLaren had to make do with a customer version.

Schumacher spun off the track and DNF'd in Donington that day.

 

Ted, I don't know why you ever bother to reply to this guy's post. I sometimes think it is a teenager posting who has no clue. Anthony C and the rest wheter we agree with them or not, have valid and intelligent comments. But this character is the second biggest MORON on the Racing section since that tool "Impy". Impy at least would google his searches not this idiot.

 

Fact is, even know that it was not mathmatically over for other drivers, that season was over before it started. Even DH knew that he will win the title that year only if something weird happen to Prost. Prost only returned to F1 just so that he can win another title, to stay ahead of Senna in titles won.

 

Tony, you're right. I think he is trolling for a response.

 

Yes, that is true. In fact I believe that Senna offered to drive alongside Prost for free that season because he recognized the superiority of the Williams but Prost vetoed it. Senna had a "race-by-race" deal with McLaren for $1 million per race that season.

I still think it is remarkable that he won at all that year given the inferiority of the McLaren, let alone 5 GPs.

 

If you are so up on your facts then why dont you tell me what his win percentage to pole was. You seem to sleep and breathe senna everywhere you post but you dont know this? Senna started from pole 65 times and won 41 times. Of those 41 wins, about a dozen were won while not on pole. So you tell me the percentages. Senna was known for his great qualifing unlike MS who could bring a car onto the podium from anywhere on the field. Senna started 162 races and only turned 19 fastest laps.
You can argue all you want about who was best and who was good but to me there is one statistic that cannot be disputed and that is the number of wins to poles. This shows that a driver can win from starting back on the grid. That to me is the mark of a GREAT driver. In modern day racing there are only 2 drivers that won many more times from NOT on pole. Prost and Schumacher.

Again thanks for the insult....Is there anyone that you dont agree with that you have not insulted?

 

Is this a mis-quote?

 

Anthony C, what I was trying to say is that although we don't always see eye to eye, I respect your posts as you have knowledge and your posts are intelligent, unlike another individual on this site.

 

Thank you and the feeling is mutual. I am always game for a healthy, intellectual debate about F1, with no profanities involved would be preferred.

 

take a step back everyone, chill a bit and see whats the title of the thread again.