From: tdonahue@star-trek.bbn.com (Tim Donahue)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.sport
Subject: Apples & Oranges (Was: Mansell NOT faster than Senna in 1991)
Date: 15 Apr 1992 18:55:32 GMT
Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Cambridge MA
Reply-To: tdonahue@bbn.com (Tim Donahue)
NNTP-Posting-Host: archive.bbn.com

Ross Taylor writes:

>Recent claims on the net that Mansell was 1 sec per lap faster 
>than Senna last year are not supported by the facts.  Here is 
>the difference in times between the grid times of Mansell and 
>Senna (and the name of the pole sitter) in all the races last 
>year.
>
>   Time difference         Pole
>
>   -1.784                  Senna           
>   -0.514                    "
>   -0.489                    "
>   -0.961                    "
>   +0.093                  Patrese
>   +0.286                    "
>   -0.038                    "
>   +0.679                  Mansell         (GB)
>   +0.187                    "

... <good stuff from Longines & Olivetti deleted>

>To summarize:  Mansell had a faster grid time five out of 
>sixteen times but was never 1 sec faster.  Senna, on the other 
>hand, was more than 1 s faster three times and approximately
>half a second faster no less than 7 times.  Perhaps those who
>claim Mansell was faster would like to justify such a view ! :-)
>
>I am aware that grid times are not always representative of race
>times but at least its an objective evaluation.  

I submit that it is no longer possible (and has not been for some time)
to compare two drivers who aren't in equal equipment.  The original
assertions (whatever they were) may have made some sense if they'd said
"The Mansell-FW14 combination was 1s per lap faster than the the Senna -
MP4/6 combination under racing conditions."

A 1991 qualifying time was the best lap under conditions not really
found in a 1991 race:

    - Relatively clean track;
    - Highly varying traffic and relative speeds (if the driver wasn't
	on a flying lap, he very likely wasn't going at racing speed);
    - Qualifying tires in various condition;
    - Possibly different chassis set-up;
    - Possibly different engines (especially in the case of Honda);
    - Possibly different fuel (yes, qualifying fuel)

People assert Prost is faster than Mansell because Prost outqualified
and won more GPs than Mansell did when they were teammates at Ferrari.
Of course, Mansell asserts that Prost had better equipment, especially
later in the season.  Perhaps Mansell wasn't that motivated, either.

By the same token, people assert that Senna is faster than Prost,
because he won more poles and one more GP than Prost did in 1988.  Of
course, Prost asserts that Senna had more powerful engines.  On the
other hand, Prost has more fastest laps (by far), which are measured
under racing conditions, than Senna.

Based on the results of the 1988, 1991, and (so far) 1992 seasons, it
seems pretty clear (to me, anyway) that the car has the most to do with
success in F1.  Prost couldn't make the 64X competitive by himself.
Likewise, Senna is unlikely to make the MP4/7 competitive on his own -
it has to be a team effort by the engineers at McLaren and at Honda.
The reverse isn't true, however; it is unlikely that Belmondo would put
the FW14B second on the grid.

>Ross Taylor

Nice research, though, and I really like periodic trivia quizzes!
Speaking of trivia: What does "JS" stand for in the Ligier model naming
scheme?

Cheers,
Tim


Newsgroups: rec.autos.sport