Eduan

Vettel Equal To Senna??

59 posts in this topic

This is what Gorgio Ascenelli said:

"Vettel is in Ayrton Senna's league, but Michael Schumacher is not. This is the sensational claim of Giorgio Ascanelli, the highly respected engineer who worked closely not only with Vettel at Toro Rosso, but also with the great Senna at McLaren. 'I am very lucky,' the Italian told Sport Bild. 'Twice in my life I have experienced perfection; once with Senna, again with Vettel."

Is this not too arrogant? Yes the man has worked with Senna but to make a call that early in his career? Although it has to be said Vettel is nothing short of brilliant. One observation I have to make is when young guys like Hamilton, Vettel etc. they get called the next Senna? I think they should just dish out those kind of statements. Well that's my opnion. I would like to hear what the rest of you think about that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess you meant to say "I think they should NOT just dish out..."?

I think you have to measure apples for apples. 20-odd years ago, Senna was ripping up the racetracks, always getting himself in the best car at the right time, and matching that with his awesome talents, he was, at the time, simply the best. However in his formative years, he was undoubtedly talked of as the next Villenueve, or the next Lauda....media and people at large have to compare today's standard with that of the previous generation.

This is why you get people comparing Hamilton and Vettel with Senna....and before that Senna with Stewart....and before that Stewart with Moss...and so on and so on, until the wheel was first invented and someone decided to ride it down a hill in some way.

Is Vettel in Senna's league? If that league is at the top of the modern generation at their relative times in F1, then yes, he is. Just as Hamilton, Kubica and Alonso are today, so too were Prost, Piquet and Mansell in Senna's day.

If that league means one could beat or match the other in a race today, in the same car...well that is an argument that can never be resolved, and is best left for the third beer on a hot summers afternoon....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Typical clap trap coming from a one eyed Kimi supporter :P

But I agree....it's just a different year, is all. He, with Hamilton, Alonso and Kubica are all at the top of the pile. Take away the fact Senna died racing in F1, and you take away the infallibility of the man...if that makes sense. He died and became a god of motorsport. Had he not, he'd just be, well, Senna, Uncle of Bruno, and winner of several world crowns....like Lauda, Stewart, and Hakkinen to name but three that won multiple WDC but survive to this day.

What I am saying is, why can't Vettel be compared to Senna (or anyone else compared to Senna for that matter)? Why is Senna so precious so as to be put so high up so as to be uncomparable?

Edited by HandyNZL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Typical clap trap coming from a one eyed Kimi supporter :P

But I agree....it's just a different year, is all. He, with Hamilton, Alonso and Kubica are all at the top of the pile. Take away the fact Senna died racing in F1, and you take away the infallibility of the man...if that makes sense. He died and became a god of motorsport. Had he not, he'd just be, well, Senna, Uncle of Bruno, and winner of several world crowns....like Lauda, Stewart, and Hakkinen to name but three that won multiple WDC but survive to this day.

What I am saying is, why can't Vettel be compared to Senna (or anyone else compared to Senna for that matter)? Why is Senna so precious so as to be put so high up so as to be uncomparable?

true, despite what senna achieved his deathh made him a legend(which is usually the case) and just what is wrong with asking the question? For god sake the kid is only 23 and look how he's performing at top level? Here we have someone who worked with both these driver's and his compare the 2 being equal, does'nt that warrant some merit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of Senna's specialisms (like Schui pre Mercedes) was taking a crap car and pushing it further up the results than it should be.

I don't get that vibe from Vettel (yet).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of Senna's specialisms (like Schui pre Mercedes) was taking a crap car and pushing it further up the results than it should be.

I don't get that vibe from Vettel (yet).

Vettel won in a Torro Rosso

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:lol: Yes, people do forget the Toro Rosso pole and win! Vettel can drive a bad or not brilliant car to victory.

I don't think the claim is arrogant. It would be arrogant from Vettel himself, but it's just an observation from an engineer (albeit one which I am not sure means all that much). What must be true is that the top guys do have similarities in the way they approach a GP weekend and work with their engineers and team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:lol:

Oh now I remember that race! It was the one where Vettel's then-teammate (now racing Mario karts?) qualified 4th. It must truly have been a shocker of a car! :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He is a good driver and time will tell. I don't think he shown us yet that he has Senna's ability to deal with traffic, maybe that time will come. In the British GP last year he seemed to get through the traffic by bumping into most of them.

BTW Handy I wouldn't put Mansell in the category of great drivers. He may have a shed load of victories to his name but everyone can see he was the luckiest man since Ringo. When he did face a really good team mate, namely Prost in 1990, he got shown up for what he was, a whinger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I may support Vettel, but comparing him to Senna!? This is Sparta, errm I mean madness. Different eras, different cars and technology, and honestly even then I think Senna would cream him.

Having said that, yes people do forget Vettel won in a Torro Rosso. That's pretty up there for a win. Maybe my recollection is foggy, but it was a straight up win wasn't it? and not some gifted win because of a sudden rain storm or what have you, that caused half the field to crash out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:lol:

Oh now I remember that race! It was the one where Vettel's then-teammate (now racing Mario karts?) qualified 4th. It must truly have been a shocker of a car! :P

ah, the Torro Rosso were the class of the field and definately in the top 3 that year? :P

Where did Torro Rosso end up in theat year btw?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:lol:

Oh now I remember that race! It was the one where Vettel's then-teammate (now racing Mario karts?) qualified 4th. It must truly have been a shocker of a car! :P

What Brad said. Besides, the same kind of argument can be said for lots of wet weather performances, i.e. the car works better in the wet than the dry. So obviously the car wasn't a shocker, but the performance was exceptional considering the pace of the car in the dry and the pressure on Vettel to perform. It is for good reason that after that victory, a lot of people thought he would be a multiple world champion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:lol:

Oh now I remember that race! It was the one where Vettel's then-teammate (now racing Mario karts?) qualified 4th. It must truly have been a shocker of a car! :P

:lol: I actually agree with you. The car was good in those conditions, at that track, that weekend. That, to me, doesn't discredit Vettel in any way at all. It just means he wasn't exactly taking a Minardi that just made 107% and somehow carving his way through the field to win. He had the best car and he was the best driver that day and that weekend. Nothing wrong with that, and sure it was impressive, but it was far from the most impressive thing I've seen in F1, and I've only watched like 40 races in my lifetime.

I think, too, that the whole "how good the car was" thing is just silly. No one can ever know how good the car is because it's always a combination of everything. You can't single one element out and say how good it is. Even comparing teammates to teammates is messy; there's a difference between a good car and a car that's suited to the driver, and don't get me wrong, a great driver can deal with the latter, but just because his teammate beat him doesn't make the teammate any better. I think Button/Barrichello's time at Honda/Brawn illustrates that well; 2007 and 2008, you would have believed Barrichello to be infinitely better. 2009...different story.

And all that to really say: a win is a win. Vettel's had more impressive wins in the Red Bull, I think, than the Toro Rosso one, but all of his wins are equal and I just don't see why people try to value one win over another based on this and that. Though I don't doubt if the FIA would think to propose a points system with a series of multipliers for various types of wins and how impressive they were to the stewards.

What Brad said. Besides, the same kind of argument can be said for lots of wet weather performances, i.e. the car works better in the wet than the dry. So obviously the car wasn't a shocker, but the performance was exceptional considering the pace of the car in the dry and the pressure on Vettel to perform. It is for good reason that after that victory, a lot of people thought he would be a multiple world champion.

But it is a valid argument, I think. Not one to discredit Vettel, but it ought to be said. Some cars aren't consistently good. Force India in 2009 would be an example of that; you could say how great Fisichella, Sutil, and Liuzzi were for some of their performances, but clearly the car was just "on" at some types of tracks in some types of conditions. I don't see how the car's dry pace would make a difference if the car won in the wet, or if the car's pace on street circuits would make a difference elsewhere. I think I'm probably missing what you're trying to say.

I think Vettel's a great driver. Absolutely cannot stand him (can't stand any of them, really, which is largely why I just don't watch much when I don't want to see any of the 24 guys do well), but he's the best out there at the moment. I don't really care about comparisons to much of anything. He wins a lot and that's really what counts.

Edited by lewisthegreat2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:lol: I actually agree with you. The car was good in those conditions, at that track, that weekend. That, to me, doesn't discredit Vettel in any way at all. It just means he wasn't exactly taking a Minardi that just made 107% and somehow carving his way through the field to win. He had the best car and he was the best driver that day and that weekend. Nothing wrong with that, and sure it was impressive, but it was far from the most impressive thing I've seen in F1, and I've only watched like 40 races in my lifetime.

I think, too, that the whole "how good the car was" thing is just silly. No one can ever know how good the car is because it's always a combination of everything. You can't single one element out and say how good it is. Even comparing teammates to teammates is messy; there's a difference between a good car and a car that's suited to the driver, and don't get me wrong, a great driver can deal with the latter, but just because his teammate beat him doesn't make the teammate any better. I think Button/Barrichello's time at Honda/Brawn illustrates that well; 2007 and 2008, you would have believed Barrichello to be infinitely better. 2009...different story.

And all that to really say: a win is a win. Vettel's had more impressive wins in the Red Bull, I think, than the Toro Rosso one, but all of his wins are equal and I just don't see why people try to value one win over another based on this and that. Though I don't doubt if the FIA would think to propose a points system with a series of multipliers for various types of wins and how impressive they were to the stewards.

But it is a valid argument, I think. Not one to discredit Vettel, but it ought to be said. Some cars aren't consistently good. Force India in 2009 would be an example of that; you could say how great Fisichella, Sutil, and Liuzzi were for some of their performances, but clearly the car was just "on" at some types of tracks in some types of conditions. I don't see how the car's dry pace would make a difference if the car won in the wet, or if the car's pace on street circuits would make a difference elsewhere. I think I'm probably missing what you're trying to say.

I think Vettel's a great driver. Absolutely cannot stand him (can't stand any of them, really, which is largely why I just don't watch much when I don't want to see any of the 24 guys do well), but he's the best out there at the moment. I don't really care about comparisons to much of anything. He wins a lot and that's really what counts.

I'm not really sure what this argument is. Somebody said they don't think Vettel can drive a slower car quite as good as Senna (probably true of any driver). Brad cited the Toro Rosso win as an example of a not so easy win. Muzza pointed out that if a car is capable of winning, and his team mate managed to qualify 4th, then how could it have been a particularly bad car? I pointed out you could say the same of a lot of wet race/quali performances. Maybe we all underestimate the role of the car in wet conditions, there are still those cars that are better than others in those conditions.

Yet, regardless of all that, Seb's performance still stands up because he didn't make any mistakes that day and won a race which nobody expected him to win. The performance doesn't make him the greatest driver ever and, after seeing a number of recordings of Senna's performances, I'm not sure I would put it up there with any of those. But that win I think is one of the best for disproving the "Vettel can only win in a Red Bull when conditions are perfect" kind of thinking which it is easy to slip into when he's dominating.

The way I think about it is, consider the number of drivers of Vettel's experience at that time, who could and would have gone out and won that race. I don't think there are many at all. Couple of years later he wins a title, not really surprising. And I still don't know what this discussion is really about :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One of Senna's specialisms (like Schui pre Mercedes) was taking a crap car and pushing it further up the results than it should be.

What was about Schumi pre Mercedes???

In Benetton, he was driving a car that the old , about-to-retire Piquet already won twice if I am not mistaken. A hell of a car, designed by John Barnard, certainly not a crappy one.

He drove for Jordan, ok, good races, but we also have that from Kobayachi, and others like Fisichella (won in a far inferior car), Panis, etc...

I don't get that vibe from Vettel (yet).

He won in Toro Rosso.

I have always said: Michael never showed how good he actually was or was not, and, just for his selectiveness on teammates, HE COULD NEVER be considered a candidate for joining the same league as AS, and the likes (Vettel, Alonso, Hamilton for instance)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vettel's most convincing drive, for me personally, was 2008 Interlagos.

At least of the ones I have seen (all four of them :lol:). That was the day when I finally gave up on defending Speed and Liuzzi.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with making generalisations (as I should have learned by now) is that there are always "ah but" situations.

Hang, on that is a generalisation too.... :S

Anyway, my point was that I do think he is good, but have not seen enough evidence yet that he can *consistently* take a crap car and get it somewhere better than where it should be.

e.g. Alonso in a Minardi, Senna (lots of times, but most memorably in Donnington), Schui in his first year in Ferrari, etc.

Largely because Vettel has not been in a lot of crap cars....

But yes, comparing drivers is daft anyway as it does not mean a lot.

And Senna definitely had better hair :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not really sure what this argument is. Somebody said they don't think Vettel can drive a slower car quite as good as Senna (probably true of any driver). Brad cited the Toro Rosso win as an example of a not so easy win. Muzza pointed out that if a car is capable of winning, and his team mate managed to qualify 4th, then how could it have been a particularly bad car? I pointed out you could say the same of a lot of wet race/quali performances. Maybe we all underestimate the role of the car in wet conditions, there are still those cars that are better than others in those conditions.

Yet, regardless of all that, Seb's performance still stands up because he didn't make any mistakes that day and won a race which nobody expected him to win. The performance doesn't make him the greatest driver ever and, after seeing a number of recordings of Senna's performances, I'm not sure I would put it up there with any of those. But that win I think is one of the best for disproving the "Vettel can only win in a Red Bull when conditions are perfect" kind of thinking which it is easy to slip into when he's dominating.

The way I think about it is, consider the number of drivers of Vettel's experience at that time, who could and would have gone out and won that race. I don't think there are many at all. Couple of years later he wins a title, not really surprising. And I still don't know what this discussion is really about :lol:

I think we all did'nt get the "point". Gorgio Ascenelli is relating the talent that Vettel has in terms of a Schumacher, and comparing him to Senna in terms of this. Regardless of whatever they drove he would've been the closest to monitor and able to witness these comparisons. On another website he said how harder Schumacher had to work to achieve his greatness, it seemed easier with Senna and Vettel with whatever innate ability they had/have.

He would've been more spot on if he also mentioned Kimi in the same league :whistling::lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not yet.

See MSC and Senna are both different, but they have so many similarities. Both could do anything with a car. If we'd have seen Senna live, then I believe we'd have also witnessed with him what is happening to MSC right now. But he didn't, so we'll never know and nobody will ever be truly able to say.

Vettel has a definite something. Will he be a legendary driver? Most likely, looking at him now. However, we cant read the future. But at this moment in time, while there may be similarities between Vettel and Senna, there are many differences and the two are not of the same calibre. And I do not mean disrespect to Vettel by that.

Some have all the glory too early and burn themselves out. Some know exactly the way to pace it and handle the pressure. Some handle it better as maturity settles in their lives.

Variety is the spice of life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anyway, my point was that I do think he is good, but have not seen enough evidence yet that he can *consistently* take a crap car and get it somewhere better than where it should be.

There is not such a thing as "he put the car higher than it should be".

This is something the media created to try to make audience more fanatic about race drivers.

The limit is always the car.

I do admit there are drivers who drive close to the edge of the car more often then others.

But above it??? No way. Dont be fooled. No one does it. If you think so, it is because your "perceptiion" of how good that car was, was terribly wrong...

BTW, how can someone exactly tell what this car or that car was capable of???????????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The limit is always the car.

I do admit there are drivers who drive close to the edge of the car more often then others.

But above it??? No way. Dont be fooled.

Senna did it, with that famous qualifying at Monaco... read it up and be elevated...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is not such a thing as "he put the car higher than it should be".

This is something the media created to try to make audience more fanatic about race drivers.

The limit is always the car.

I do admit there are drivers who drive close to the edge of the car more often then others.

But above it??? No way. Dont be fooled. No one does it. If you think so, it is because your "perceptiion" of how good that car was, was terribly wrong...

BTW, how can someone exactly tell what this car or that car was capable of???????????

Sigh I was going to write a long reply but I really can't be arsed.

Anyway... of course an excellent driver can get a car further up the pack than it could/should be. In terms of what that means, its comparing it to 'form", team mate performance, other similarly engined cars, etc.

Its about wringing every last ounce of grip and performance out of the car, using it to its utmost. If your argument stood then no-one would shine in wet weather, but some do. And similarly some drivers can make the best of a crappy car. End of.

Over and out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can see what Shields means. He really is just making the obvious point that the car is still the limit of what can be achieved, i.e. no matter who is driving it you will eventually find that you cannot improve anymore. In that sense, no driver has ever driven above the limit of a car, they have simply reached the limit, or close to it, and we have been surprised because we didn't expect the car to be so high up because of our perceptions/previous form, team mate's performance, etc.

What people really mean when they say "he drove the car above its limits" is "he drove the car above what anyone could have expected".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before uttering my usual crap, I would like to know what we are actually discussing here (because these sort of misunderstandings are the foundation of most circular debates):

1) According to a mechanic, SV is as good as Senna. Do we believe he is? Well, he can be, as far as I know. Why not? The mechanic guy is in better position than I am to judge Vettel. I have nothing to prove him wrong. I guess he must have seen "something" (I am assuming that the guy actualy exists, that the wrods were actualy said and t hat the guy was not on drugs). Seriously, nothing forbids another Senna from showing up. It could be Vettel, it could be even Liuzzi.

Definitely Liuzzi.

2) According to a mechanic, SV is as good as Senna. Has SV show he is as good?. This is a definite nope. I have no idea what are the limist of Vettel's skills. But I am quite sure of what he has shown. And what he has shown was barely enough to put him in the same league as Massa. No, no, I am not saying he is just like Massa...read again: I am saying he hasn't shown much more. Others have pointed the things he has yet to prove. Don't even bother mentioning the WDC. JV has one of those too yet nobody compares him with Ayrton, maybe with Bruno...Of course, Vettel didn't have many chances to prove hinself in different conditions as he was blessed/cursed with a monster of a car. Monza with STR gives him an added edge. But he still has some more things to prove. He can still prove them, of course. He is young, RBR will not remain unbeatable forever and rougher times will come. And then, perhaps, I will be able to say: "That mechanic guy was right! Vettel is like Ayrton!"

Or Liuzzi.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now