FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[Gilles 27]

Well yes, Bellof was catching Senna faster than Senna was catching Prost. He looked visibly faster on the track than Senna during the whole race. Not to mention him dragging a car that was over 200 bhp down on the entire field into the points in other races that season.

On Fangio, I rate him as one of the all time greats but i wouldn't go on the assumption that the older cars were harder to drive. The limit became far harder to 'feel' with the introduction of carbon fibre and complex aerodynamics. I would imagine the cars last season with grooved tyres, carbon fibre chassis, high downforce levels, extremely complex aerodynamic forces, no traction control, no braking stabilisation and 700-800 bhp will have been amongst the most difficult to drive F1 cars of all time.

[McLaren Fan]

I don't buy into these theories that Bellof's performance in the 1984 Monaco Grand Prix was superior. Both drivers put in great performances, but there are important facts to consider. First, having less horsepower around the streets of Monte Carlo is not so much of a disadvantage when it's dry and is actually a benefit when its wet. Second, Tyrrell always produced a half-decent chassis, which is again going to be a big advantage in Monaco. Given the track and conditions, I know I'd rather have been in Bellof's Tyrrell over Senna's Toleman.

[Gilles 27]

Yes I agree, especially towards the end of that race, not necessarily less power but certainly not having to put up with turbo lag was a benefit to Stefan.
In a wet race like that, there is usually only one driver who is able to find and understand the very outer limits of grip and in that race, it was Bellof. He was pushing harder than anyone else in the field from the start and survived to the end of the race, showing that he was doing so with accuracy and consistency.
For me, it's not so much that he was fastest at the end of the race but that he demonstrated a level of commitment that was absent from all the other drivers in the race, Senna included

[Blue Shadow]

You can´t compare drivers of the early 50s with drivers at now.
The technologies were absolutely different.
As Fangio drove,the drivers had to fear for their lives.
It´s simply not the same as at now.
Today you´ve nearly no risks.But that´s not the point,i want to discuss with you.
I just wanted to make you clear that there are no possibilities to compare drivers who lived in an interval like those.

[7UpJordan]

I don't buy into these theories that Bellof's performance in the 1984 Monaco Grand Prix was superior. Both drivers put in great performances, but there are important facts to consider. First, having less horsepower around the streets of Monte Carlo is not so much of a disadvantage when it's dry and is actually a benefit when its wet. Second, Tyrrell always produced a half-decent chassis, which is again going to be a big advantage in Monaco. Given the track and conditions, I know I'd rather have been in Bellof's Tyrrell over Senna's Toleman.

Interestingly this is the same Tyrrell team that got disqualified from the entire 1984 season for putting lead in their fuel tank and all sorts of irregularities. Do you reckon these irregularities gave Bellof another advantage at Monaco in the wet? Personally I don't think they made any difference, for Bellof put another great performance in at Estoril the following year in the wet and finished 6th after tangling with Manfred Winkelhock early on in the race.

[racechick]

I think there's a mistake with the little boxes you tick because i couldn't see lewis'. So I picked Senna. But Gilles was quick.

[EwanM]

I think there's a mistake with the little boxes you tick because i couldn't see lewis'.

[DinoTheGreek]

senna had a crap car but he still kept up with the best of them.
Senna had raw pace.

[budong4585]

... and their torsos stood above the car with no roll bar!

well this is a very tough race.
for me its prost is the best of all

[Tim]

Senna was quick man,like lightning!, i reckon just over Alan Frost and way over Schumacher.

[EwanM]

Senna was quick man,like lightning!, i reckon just over Alan Frost and way over Schumacher.

Alain Prost?

[Tim]

one "i" give me a break lol and the "f"

[Girlcollector]

Senna was blindingly quick in qualifying, but in race conditions, Michael was faster. Ckark was also blindingly quick. The greatest speed I ever say though, was RONNIE Peterson. Prost is another overlooked driver as far as speed goes. He wasn't as fast as Senna in qualifying, but once the race started, he was every bit as quick. Both Hakkinen and Mansell could really fly as well, and when Raikkonen puts his mind to it, he's as fast as anyone. If I needed one qualifying lap, I'd take Senna. If I needed lap after lap near qualifying speed in a race, I'd take Schumacher. If I needed speed in the wet, Senna and Sschumacher were about equal, but I couldn't go wrong with Jackie Stewart. People forget just how fast he was.

[burt estep]

tazio n. at the ring beating the might of the silver arrows in a outdated alfa.the most imortal drive of all time-bar none. burt.

[texasmr2]

tazio n. at the ring beating the might of the silver arrows in a outdated alfa.the most imortal drive of all time-bar none. burt.

Yes sir that was truelly an amazing drive. I remember reading about it back in the '70's and those stories were always the ones I read over and over. Who was the the guy who wrote those for R&T as I cant remember his name yet I know he is no longer with us, was it Dennis Simantis?