planetf1.com

Interesting article on Mika Hakkinen in F1 Racing. On the 93 season and his experience of partnering Senna he says: "...just let's say that, for me, he was not the nicest guy in the paddock."

I expect he could be an absolute nightmare of a team mate.

I think, if you challenged him, yes. He always got on fine with Berger because he always beat him. Perhaps there's an echo of Alonso's fraught relationship with Hamilton at Mclaren.. Some of those who are the very best cannot brook being challenged. Their sense of self depends on being the best. So anyone who beats them is either cheating, lucky or has some unfair advantage. I'm guessing Schumacher would have been like this, if he'd ever been challenged by a team-mate. I think it's testament to Hamilton's ability to have a life outside F1 that he can take not always winning against his team-mate.

Not sure about that in reference to Hamilton. Have a look what happened with Rosberg.

Berger like Hakkinen out qualified Senna first time of asking, maybe unlike Hakkinen, Berger didn't look to make a big thing out of it because Hakkinen likes to mention Senna's reaction to it, much like when he out qualified Mansell he said Mansell was almost crying, maybe there's a certain competitive edge that emits from Hakkinen himself that illicits drivers to react a certain way?

At least if Senna had stayed at McLaren Hakkinen would have got a fair shake because I don't recall Senna requiring team orders or being bestowed with them like we have seen with Schumacher and Alonso, Vettel seems to quite like team orders as well.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place
2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)

Do we want to relive Monaco 2014?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place
2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)

Always the digs...

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15

Ive seen that very interview Fiki, but there are other interviews that I saw way back, while were both still racing, that I have no clue how to find, where in at least 2 of them a Honda representative confirmed it by spinning it in a way that tried to justify it by trying to sell it as Honda using Senna to test any potential "upgrades" to ensure reliability before they made their way to Prost's car. And I recall the man saying this with a smirk on his face though I didn't quite understand it, but my dad looked at me and asked if I understood what the guy just said, and my dad explained it to me and I was shocked. The next time the subject was raised I was listening with a different perspective and again the same was said by a different Honda representative which confirmed what my dad explained. In his broken heavy accented English, my dad said See iss no fair!?? And he was a massive Senna fan so it was really a thorn in his side.

I hope someone know where to find these interviews.

_________________
HAMILTON :: VERSTAPPEN :: LECLERC :: BOTTAS :: VETTEL :: SAINZ :: NORRIS
KVYAT :: RAIKKONEN :: RUSSEL :: ALBON :: RICCIARDO :: HULKENBURG :: PEREZ
STROLL :: MAGNUSSEN :: GROSJEAN :: GASLY :: GIOVANAZZI :: KUBICA

I doubt anyone does

"There was a degree of obsession with Ayrton and Alain over engine selection. In the end there were three engines, Honda would recommend two they thought we should race, and then it came down to a coin flip. Two people had to witness it; it was an internal drama, but it was clearly the easiest way to make sure there was no favouritism."

https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/features/2014/4/Ron-Dennis-on-Senna---Part-one-the-early-years.html

It's black and white here. If you still prefer conspiracy theories then there's not much anyone can do I'm afraid

That was early on, in their partnership. It’s not a conspiracy theory so quit trying to discredit what I’m telling you was aired on TV. You may not have seen it, but I was obsessed with trying to convince my parents to help me get my racing license, and I watched everything possible on TV, often staying up til the wee hours of the night for fear if I’d go to sleep I wouldn’t wake up and miss it.

If you read that entire article you posted you’ll notice some inconsistencies like the suggestion that as soon as Prost left McLaren they became closer… their rivalry lasted until Prost retired and their relationship didn’t improve much until several months before Senna’s death.

I bet you also never saw Senna’s whining interviews where he whined that Prost is only beating him because the car he’s driving is so superior to mine, and that’s not racing. Yet when he had the car advantage it was all fair and he was happy and he was doing what he was ordained to do which is win! 🤦🏽‍♂️

_________________
HAMILTON :: VERSTAPPEN :: LECLERC :: BOTTAS :: VETTEL :: SAINZ :: NORRIS
KVYAT :: RAIKKONEN :: RUSSEL :: ALBON :: RICCIARDO :: HULKENBURG :: PEREZ
STROLL :: MAGNUSSEN :: GROSJEAN :: GASLY :: GIOVANAZZI :: KUBICA

I don't recall Schumacher creating any tension when being beaten by Rosberg, although admittedly they were never in a Championship race which may trigger different pressures.

I think the only top drivers of recent years who haven't shown themselves to be particularly difficult when threatened would be Button and Vettel. Yes Vettel had issues with Webber but I think Webber was pretty aggressive himself in that scenario. But When Ricciardo thumped Vettel he was pretty non-confrontational. And Button seemed very chilled most of the time. The others all tend to be a little less equitable IMO

Well I'm far from trying to pretend Senna was a saint and I'm perfectly happy to accept he may have whinged about things himself. But when a TP comes out and outlines the extent by which they went to ensure parity of engines I don't think it's credible to ignore it in favour of a "feeling" that it wasn't quite right.

I think you can really only look at team mates when they are both challenging for championships. It's easy to remain on decent terms with your team mate when the stakes are lower.

Alonso has competed against Hamilton for a championship and fell out with him.

Hamilton competed against Alonso, Rosberg and Button for championships and fell out with Alonso and Rosberg.

Vettel competed against Webber for a championship and fell out with him.

When the pressures on all of our recent superstars haven't been able to keep a lid on it.

yes fair enough I agree that titles carry a different type of pressure.

I still think the Webber situation was different but accept that it can be viewed as such

Leaving Hamilton out of the drivers that benefited from team orders! I love these double standards sometimes!!!

I'd dare add Button and Rubens too, albeit probably being a stretch. I remember Rubens mainly winging about the team and not exactly Button, but I do remember them saying that they had a love-hate relationship or something like that in 2009.

Didn't Button and Hamilton also fall out? With the whole twitter, crash and telemetry thing?

I wouldn't put those things in the same group really. I think that was just drivers having a general moan. There never seemed any ill will between drivers in those cases.

Yes I'd agree there's a difference between a bit of disgruntlement and the all-out wars we've seen between some drivers

Fair enough, that's why I mentioned it as a stretch.

Button and Hamilton though I'd consider more though, as they did fall out after they crashed into each other, didn't they?

I'm not sure they did? Or if they did they patched it up enough that they could continue to have a productive working relationship which I think is unlike the the examples above.

They did, yes. Button explains it here:

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/button-hamilton-teammate-mclaren-weird-966284/3052440/

I'll admit I don't remember how that relationship ended up, so I'm probably wrong here.

In general I think they all got back on good terms after some time, apart from maybe Rosberg and Hamilton.

I think the Red Bull favouritism thing is a weird one.

Weird in the way they seem to favour 1 driver over the other by mainly giving the favoured driver more lovin' than the out of favour driver. Thats my perception anyway.

They definitely did that with Vettel over Webber & Verstappen over Ricciardo. Not sure about the 1 season Ricciardo & Vettel had together.

In the Webber / Vettel years, RB employed team-orders that favoured both drivers at different stages. There's stories of Vettel getting things like new wings & such over Webber but nothing major. I can't recall Vettel getting preferential strategy calls outside of any pre-determined team philosophy (driver in front gets option on pit stop etc). It was more the Turkey 2010 like situations. The time Webber won a race yet when he got back into the garage it seemed no-one was overly delighted.

Similar with Ricciardo / Verstappen. It was the Baku 2017 situation. It was the public "Build a team around Verstappen" comment. It was the comment Christian Horner made to Geri in the Drive to Survive series when they were walking on their farm discussing the upcoming Monaco GP last season. Even though the team had had cost Ricciardo the win in 2016, his only comment was that he'd like to see Verstappen either win or go well, I cant remember exactly what he said. Then again I will concede that bit could've just been edited that way & I may have taken the comment out of text.

As for Senna & team orders / favouritism. Outside of the rumoured preferential Honda engine thing, the only other time I know that the got his way was Lotus in 86 where he kyboshed Derek Warwick joining the team. This wasn't out of fear of Warwick but rather a concern that Lotus didn't have the resources to support 2 #1 drivers & remain competitive, so in the end Lotus signed up Johnny Dumfries.

He copped a pasting off the British media for it at the time but in retrospect most agreed it was the right decision & seeing the speed that Lotus declined after he left, it's hard to argue.

_________________
Races since last non RB, Merc, Ferrari winner (After Brazil- 19) - 138 & counting.( Last win, Lotus, 17/3/13)

Non RB, Merc, Ferrari podiums won in Hybrid era - 360 trophies available, 26 won

2017 WCC CPTTC - Jalopy Racing (Herb & Me)

A few years back they published Senna's contract from that time (I think the Lotus one) that asks for N1 status, so there's that too.

Yeah well that was 87 wasn't it?

I'd wager it was for the same reason as 86.

_________________
Races since last non RB, Merc, Ferrari winner (After Brazil- 19) - 138 & counting.( Last win, Lotus, 17/3/13)

Non RB, Merc, Ferrari podiums won in Hybrid era - 360 trophies available, 26 won

2017 WCC CPTTC - Jalopy Racing (Herb & Me)

I can't remember now to be honest, I should have downloaded it!

There ya go. yeah it was 87.

https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/tobacco/docs/#id=zmkb0190

And just for addition, Nelson Piquets 1988 contract with Lotus

https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/tobacco/docs/#id=zlpg0065

_________________
Races since last non RB, Merc, Ferrari winner (After Brazil- 19) - 138 & counting.( Last win, Lotus, 17/3/13)

Non RB, Merc, Ferrari podiums won in Hybrid era - 360 trophies available, 26 won

2017 WCC CPTTC - Jalopy Racing (Herb & Me)

Ah, good man! Thank you for doing the legwork, you were absolutely right, '87!

Interestingly, it is also for 1988. I had forgotten Senna was supposed to drive for Lotus in '88. I will have to try to look up what reasons were given at the time for Senna not only going to McLaren a year early, but taking Honda with him.

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi

Wow, amazing find here! But I couldn't see where in Senna's contract it said he was the number 1 driver?

I'd love to see some the current driver's contracts.

This might cover it Fiki.

1 TERM

1.1 ........... commencing on 1st January 1987 to 31st December 1987 ("The first period") and subject to neither party exercising its options to terminate pursuant to clause 9.2.........

9 TERMINATION

9.2 ............ Either party may terminate this Agreement as from expiry of the first period by serving notice in writing to the other not later than 8th August 1987.

So looks like it was as easy as a simple letter.

As for Honda going to Macca, the good people at Wikipedia says

" Williams actually had an existing contract to continue using the Honda engines in 1988. However, the team's refusal to dump Nigel Mansell and replace him with Honda's test driver Satoru Nakajima for the 1986 season, as well as Honda being reportedly unhappy with Williams management for allegedly not honouring the number one driver status of Nelson Piquet's contract which contributed to both Piquet and Mansell losing the 1986 Drivers' Championship to McLaren's Alain Prost, saw the relationship between Honda and the team sour and the Japanese giant pulled out of the contract, announcing at the 1987 Hungarian Grand Prix a three-year deal to supply their engines to McLaren from 1988."

_________________
Races since last non RB, Merc, Ferrari winner (After Brazil- 19) - 138 & counting.( Last win, Lotus, 17/3/13)

Non RB, Merc, Ferrari podiums won in Hybrid era - 360 trophies available, 26 won

2017 WCC CPTTC - Jalopy Racing (Herb & Me)

I agree Rosberg out-psyched Hamilton in 2016, and out-lucked him. But we never saw Hamilton whining and bitching that Rosberg had better equipment. He didn't have his best year, but he never blamed anyone but himself for under-performing. I think that's class..

Agreed. But I think Schumacher came out of retirement for love of the sport and because of boredom. He didn't come back expecting to be treated like God like he would have in 2006. He was actually just glad to be there. Over those 3 years he made a dent in his stats and his reputation as he wasn't as quick as before. But that didn't bother him. I think that's class too..

Strange that Schumacher probably dented his reputation on paper with his 2nd career, but enhanced it in other ways.

Certainly became a lot less robot and more human in the 2nd career

_________________
I'm competing if anyone is interested in how I am getting on.
Car #36 - Blog

I spotted it too, two N1's for '88! Although Piquet was brought in afterwards. I did look a little bit about Senna leaving prematurely, but could find nothing.

Clause 4.3

Very true. But he was there to build up the team with his experience, and to a degree he accomplished it. No one - apart from some delusional fan boys - would expect him to just walk into a WDC just like that. If nothing else, we had Alonso and Button in their prime, Hamilton had emerged as a top driver, the Vettel/Red Bull combo was unstoppable, while he was coming back from a 3 year break with a broken neck, no sim time and a Merc team that didn't function like today's giant, but with a midfield team's budget. I do not think that anyone would have pulled this off.

POB's daughter Catherine here, using his log-in to respond to @DOLOMITE:

POB's review of the literature (Chapter 2 of his 'Explanatory Chapters') argues why his System is the least flawed of the methodologies that exist to date. It does not take championship points into account at all, but rather is based on actual race-times, which provides an objective measure, minimising or 'constraining' subjective judgements. The use of both quantitative and qualitative measures in his rating system ensures that it is sensitive to the complexities of what is actually going on on the track.

Here POB specifies the strengths and limitations of his method, so that it can be compared to other methodologies:
http://grandprixratings.blogspot.com/2017/01/explanatory-chapters-now-available.html

POB would agree that there is no single marker to use as a baseline, although actual race-times is his starting point:

"The primary measure of my Rating System is the actual race-finishing times. Hence most of the ratings are based on race-times. However, when the race-times work out (1) equal or (2) obviously out of sync with team-mate times or other data such as race results, then I resort to secondary measures, which include both quantitative and qualitative measures. These secondary measures include:
1. Race results
2. Leading distances
3. Fastest race laps
4. Starting grid positions
5. Race-finishing positions"

Here POB discusses what he uses as a baseline:
http://grandprixratings.blogspot.com/p/why-base-figure-of-1000-is-used.html

I think he would agree with you that "to say a driver was driving at x % of the cars potential is misleading". He deals with the difficulties of answering this question, termed "Car:Driver ratio", in his 2016 'Explanatory Chapters' book:

"Assessments on the ratio of ‘Car contribution relative to Driver contribution’ to Package performance by engineers, drivers and commentators have ranged widely: from the commonly cited 50:50 to Peter Windsor’s 60:40 and Phillips’s (2015) average ratio of 61:39, others reckon it is 70:30, while Neubauer’s estimation is 90:10 when referring to the success of the car, claiming 90% resides in the car’s preparation. In 2013, a F1 forum poster quoted a contemporary driver as saying “it is 85% car, which could be reduced to 65% for the car with a top-driver”. This 20% improvement due to a driver change is unrealistically high (85% – 65% = 20%). That would be equivalent to a 20-second improvement in a single 100.0-second qualifying lap at Abu Dhabi, and 20 minutes in a 100-minute, 60-lap race. This is not realistic.
[...]
"A top-rated driver extracts the maximum from a car; that is, he contributes 100% to the package performance. A slow driver in Car A would not extract only half the car’s potential, as in the 50:50 estimate; he would extract only somewhat less than a fast driver. Even a ratio of 60:40 is too wide. [...]"

Hope I'm not breaking Forum rules by giving these links, and that this helps to drive forward this fascinating and perennial debate! It took POB 17 volumes to address it: 14 volumes for each of the Grand Prix seasons up to 2016 (he died in March 2017), plus 3 theoretical volumes giving his method. Based on POB's race-by-race working tables (unpublished), Nuno Moreira is replicating POB's method and continuing the season analyses to the present day.

--
Follow POB posthumously on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/pob_renaissanceman/
http://grandprixratings.blogspot.com/

_________________
http://grandprixratings.blogspot.com

Response by POB's daughter Catherine, using his log-in:

POB's Rating System incorporates both raw statistics and subjective opinion - but this is not unconstrained opinion in that if one is taking into account the same 'secondary measures' that he is considering, one would have a high chance of coming to the same conclusion as him. After the point at which raw statistics are no longer decisive, his ratings and rankings are based on reasoned argument, based on a range of predefined criteria (his 'secondary measures').

I know POB would have enjoyed discussing these 'numerous sources' with you. Having studied every race since 1894, he identified them as:
[1] Driver
[2] Car
[3] Team-mate
[4] Rivals
[5] Own-team
[6] Mishaps/luck

He termed these his "six criteria for driver-dominance", dominance being defined as 'winning a high number of races per season'.

POB's thesis was that no driver, no matter how great and talented, would be able to dominate without enjoying at least two of these six criteria. "Obviously one of these two must be driver talent. Dominance is not however possible due solely to driver ability."

Evidence for his assertions about these 6 criteria can be found here:
http://grandprixratings.blogspot.com/2018/03/patrick-obriens-grand-prix-rating.html

--
Follow POB posthumously on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/pob_renaissanceman/

_________________
http://grandprixratings.blogspot.com