LOGO
Reply to Thread New Thread
Old 08-23-2012, 12:57 AM   #1
ansarigf

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
359
Senior Member
Default Ayrton would not have won anything in today's F1!
Can you believe Piquet Jr?

Senna not good enough for today's F1 - Piquet Jr | News | Motorsport.com
ansarigf is offline


Old 08-23-2012, 01:52 AM   #2
Shipsyspeepay

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
492
Senior Member
Default
Nelson is entitled to his opinion but I can't help but think he is making comments like this to get a mention in the press. He's succeeded in the latter, and this has just added to the laugh bank for me. A driver who crashed a lot, struggled immensely, gained one lucky podium, and cheated to try and save his own F1 career, is not necessarily someone I would listen to regarding rating talent today or in yesteryear.

PS: The site in the link BTW is the same one who tried to illegally acquire this very forum at the end of 2010, and I would have chosen another quoted source lol.
Shipsyspeepay is offline


Old 08-23-2012, 06:46 AM   #3
sessoorale

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
463
Senior Member
Default
Another gem from Junior is circulating around:

Piquet Jr: Timing good for Grosjean | Planet F1 | Formula One | News, Standings, Results, Features, Video

Nelson Piquet Jr has downplayed Romain Grosjean's achievements this season, saying "there is no phenomenon", there's just "luck".

Piquet Jr was dropped by Renault midway through the 2009 season after which the allegations of crashgate - the 2008 Singapore GP - came to light.

Replaced by Grosjean, the Frenchman did not have a good time at Renault and was dropped only to return into 2011, this time under the guidance of Eric Boullier.

Grosjean's second stint at the team, now known as Lotus, has been a lot more successful as he already has three podium finishes to his name.

However, Piquet Jr reckons Grosjean's success is thanks to the car and if former team-mate Fernando Alonso was driving the E20 Lotus would be leading the Championship.

"Had Alonso been there he would be winning the Championship with that car," Piquet Jr told TotalRace.

"Sure he (Grosjean) has improved a lot but there is no phenomenon. Nothing compared to Alonso.

"He is luck is that after F1 he got another season in GP2, found a sponsor and returned to F1 as a paying driver, right?

"Then things were, how do you say, right in his career. Timing was very good for him."

He added: "He's had a lot of luck, came at a time with a team-mate who is a little weak and a very good car."
One out of three things have happened:

1. Nelsinho is smoking some really good stuff.

2. The "crash" at Singapore and the subsequent send-off from F1 made him lose his marbles.

3. Helmut Marko has taken junior under his wing.
sessoorale is offline


Old 08-23-2012, 07:08 AM   #4
sobre

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
382
Senior Member
Default
Piquet is doing a good job in NASCAR but is still not happy with the fact that he never got a fair chance in F1 because he had Alonso as his teammate and Flavio Briatore as his teamboss. I don't think a lot of rookies do like that tbh.
sobre is offline


Old 08-23-2012, 08:59 AM   #5
caseferter

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
415
Senior Member
Default
Ayrton won Grands Prix for Lotus in cars which were usually unreliable and I think would have won the 1984 Monaco Grand Prix had it gone to completion.

Piquet's comments show that he knows nothing of history. Maybe he'd do better playing his PS-Wii-Box
caseferter is offline


Old 08-23-2012, 10:31 AM   #6
Enalsebeerkawl

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
457
Senior Member
Default
Now he's sorta explaining his comments. Anybody shed some light on whether he has a point here?
http://www.auto123.com/en/racing-new...ampaign=racing
Enalsebeerkawl is offline


Old 08-23-2012, 01:42 PM   #7
ManituIKOL

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
453
Senior Member
Default
Well in a way his explanation makes sense. I do remember that Senna was good at engine development while Prost was better at chassis development, which is why they were such a super team at McLaren. And Senna was always running off to Brazil rather than doing winter testing. I remember in 1991 Gerhard Berger got very annoyed because he spent the whole winter testing the new Honda V12 engine, Senna arrived in Phoenix for the first race, said the engine wasn't good and then promptly won the race.

Senna would always have been a front runner in any car, although in this modern era it's doubtful how far he could have taken say a Marussia up from where it is. But as far as developing stuff is concerned I think Piquet Jr has a point here. But then again in the modern era how much development work do the current drivers do when compared to what was happening in the 70s and 80s?
ManituIKOL is offline


Old 08-23-2012, 01:59 PM   #8
Ambassador

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
394
Senior Member
Default
Very ignorant statement. One, I would say, Piquet Jr. isn't even qualified to make.
Ambassador is offline


Old 08-23-2012, 04:07 PM   #9
netamargr

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
455
Senior Member
Default
Another gem from Junior is circulating around:

Piquet Jr: Timing good for Grosjean | Planet F1 | Formula One | News, Standings, Results, Features, Video




One out of three things have happened:

1. Nelsinho is smoking some really good stuff.

2. The "crash" at Singapore and the subsequent send-off from F1 made him lose his marbles.

3. Helmut Marko has taken junior under his wing.
I pretty much agree with him about Grosjean and I do feel that Kimi is a bit weak and overrated.

However, I can't agree with him regards Ayrton. Pure speculation and nothing to back up his assertions. Ayrton was a great driver, far better than Nelsinho will ever be, so if he couldn't expected to win, Nelly definitely wouldn't.
netamargr is offline


Old 08-23-2012, 10:52 PM   #10
Assauraarguck

Join Date
Nov 2005
Posts
464
Senior Member
Default
Piquet Jr talking out of his backside as usual.

A despite winning in NASCAR's lower echelons he is a driver I hate to see succeed.

Well in a way his explanation makes sense. I do remember that Senna was good at engine development while Prost was better at chassis development, which is why they were such a super team at McLaren. And Senna was always running off to Brazil rather than doing winter testing.
Senna had Honda in his back pocket and it enabled him to have Ron Dennis under his thumb.

Pretty much why Prost left McLaren.

The reason why Senna had Honda in his back pocket was the work he did at Lotus. Not just the Honda engines. Lotus pioneered active suspension. Senna warmed to the technology whereas say Mansell wanted nothing to do with it. Can't remember which year but there was a Lotus with a clever ride height system.

Senna would always have been a front runner in any car, although in this modern era it's doubtful how far he could have taken say a Marussia up from where it is
There is only so much a great driver can do from polishing a turd. For instance Alonso got his Minardi regularly qualified on the penultimate row so I think Senna would have probably got third row from back. In a Caterham I think he would be fighting for points finish just as a Toleman in lesser hands would have been fighting for top 10 whereas Senna exceeded in getting points finish.

I pretty much agree with him about Grosjean and I do feel that Kimi is a bit weak and overrated.
Grosjean better in quali but Kimi is better racer. On balance I'd go for Kimi as he makes huge gains in races even though Grosjean is shedding his reputation as a lairy racer.

Kimi has better racecraft.

For instance in Hungary Grosjean took to much out of his tyre earlier in the stints but then had to switch to Kimi's tactics at conserving tyres and then attacking at the latter end of the stint. But by doing this Grosjean's final stint had no pace whatsoever whereas Kimi was blatantly the quicker car.

The other thing is Kimi is getting better with age adapting to this F1 malarkey. He should have won in Bahrain had he had more confidence but in Hungary he banged wheels with his own team mate.
Assauraarguck is offline


Old 08-24-2012, 01:11 AM   #11
hellencomstar

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
386
Senior Member
Default
"Someone like Senna would not have won anything in F1 today," he (Piquet, Jr.) is quoted by Terra.

"He was very fast but he had no talent in terms of the technical and mechanical." Yes, The Crashgate Kid is entitled to his (baseless) opinion. But considering that Piquet, Jr. does not have an engineering degree and Shigeru Uehara (chief NSX engineer at Honda in the early 90's) offers a completely opposite opinion, Piquet's words strike me as akin to Paris Hilton offering her opinion on the Higgs Boson particle. The reason the NSX wound up with a stiffer chassis than it originally had was because of Ayrton Senna's technical and mechanical input, according to Uehara. And from various accounts that I have read, it was the close relationship that Senna formed with the engineers (and other team members) that contributed to him being embraced and Prost being frozen out at McLaren.

Just drive your stock car/truck and try not to screw this one up, Nelson. Just accept your plight. No need to be bitter because you torpedoed your own career by lacking moral and ethical fiber.
hellencomstar is offline


Old 08-24-2012, 01:16 AM   #12
refsherne

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
490
Senior Member
Default
Ayrton won Grands Prix for Lotus in cars which were usually unreliable and I think would have won the 1984 Monaco Grand Prix had it gone to completion.
Would he though? Bellof was catching the pair of them at a stonking rate.

Would Senna have been as strong now? Not sure. Most of his championships were won with as dominant a combination as Schumacher had at Ferrari, no single team is as strong anymore. Also while Senna moved the game on in terms of professionalism and fitness today his level of fitness and dedication is seen as the norm.

Unlike Nelsinho I wouldn't have thought Senna's technical expertise was his weakness, at the time it was one of his strengths. However again today with the level of electronic monitoring and telemetry I don't think this expertise would give him the degree of advantage it used to. Sutil used to be mocked for his rather poor technical expertise and feedback, didn't stop him from being damned quick in an FI.
refsherne is offline


Old 08-24-2012, 02:47 AM   #13
radicalvolume

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
453
Senior Member
Default
Looks like it was craps made up the journalist, much ado about nothing. I never go to motorsport.com and now I know to not go there.
radicalvolume is offline


Old 08-24-2012, 02:56 AM   #14
Cofeeman

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
595
Senior Member
Default
The reason why Senna had Honda in his back pocket was the work he did at Lotus. Not just the Honda engines. Lotus pioneered active suspension. Senna warmed to the technology whereas say Mansell wanted nothing to do with it. Can't remember which year but there was a Lotus with a clever ride height system.
I think the reasons for the Senna/Honda/Japan three way lovefest are more complex than that.

Firstly Senna made it clear that he was racing for Honda as much as the team he was signed up to at the time and he made a big effort to engage with the Japanese media. Then there was his personality that the Japanese deeply admired, aggressive to the extreme on track yet quiet, thoughtful and almost humble off it. Also he's Brazilian, a country the Japanese feel a deep affinity with. Ultimately few if any drivers have been taken to heart as much by Honda or the Japanese in general as he was to the extent that no Japanese driver has ever been close to equalling him in terms of popularity and that fanatical levels of support for him there probably equalled that in Brazil.

How much of this was him being political and wanting the best engine maker of the period as an ally and how much was down to genuine chemistry I don't know.
Cofeeman is offline


Old 08-24-2012, 03:41 AM   #15
DoctorTOneery

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
512
Senior Member
Default
Nelson is entitled to share his opinion on Senna or Fittipaldi... and we are entitled to laugh at him.
DoctorTOneery is offline


Old 08-24-2012, 07:24 AM   #16
socialkiiii

Join Date
Nov 2005
Posts
566
Senior Member
Default
Would Senna have been as strong now? Not sure. Most of his championships were won with as dominant a combination as Schumacher had at Ferrari, no single team is as strong anymore. Also while Senna moved the game on in terms of professionalism and fitness today his level of fitness and dedication is seen as the norm.
You could say the say the same for most other WDCs. Champions had the best car at some point during the season. It's the ability to consistently maximise the car when you don't have a race winning car.

But yes, the competition between teams is much closer.

How much of this was him being political and wanting the best engine maker of the period as an ally and how much was down to genuine chemistry I don't know.
A combination.

Even at Toleman he was adept at politics such as wanting better tyres and signing up with

I think he knew he could get away at playing the spoilt brat even up to 1993 he managed to get $1million race fees yet Ron Dennis wanted nothing to do with him.
socialkiiii is offline


Old 08-24-2012, 09:28 AM   #17
socialkiiii

Join Date
Nov 2005
Posts
566
Senior Member
Default
Would Senna have been as strong now? Not sure. Most of his championships were won with as dominant a combination as Schumacher had at Ferrari, no single team is as strong anymore. Also while Senna moved the game on in terms of professionalism and fitness today his level of fitness and dedication is seen as the norm.

Unlike Nelsinho I wouldn't have thought Senna's technical expertise was his weakness, at the time it was one of his strengths. However again today with the level of electronic monitoring and telemetry I don't think this expertise would give him the degree of advantage it used to. Sutil used to be mocked for his rather poor technical expertise and feedback, didn't stop him from being damned quick in an FI.
Yes but had Senna been around today, he would have been shaped by the same forces as other drivers today.
The Senna born in 1960 would be a different Senna to one born in 1987. To that end, Senna's contemporary would have been Vettel.

The sheer and utter ruthlessness that 60 Senna showed would have been identical to an 87 Senna. Conditions are vastly different, but I still suspect that our hypothetical Senna would have been in a top team (probably in Massa's or Webber's seat) and been winning GPs anyway.

Senna did make a Toleman score fastest laps and did win grands prix in the Lotus. Piquet Jr. did neither the Renault, even though Alonso proved that the car was capable of winning grands prix.

Would he though? Bellof was catching the pair of them at a stonking rate.
Bellof would have had to have passed both of them. That's a tall very order indeed.
socialkiiii is offline


Old 08-24-2012, 04:03 PM   #18
Donlupedron

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
534
Senior Member
Default
The reason why Senna had Honda in his back pocket was the work he did at Lotus. Not just the Honda engines. Lotus pioneered active suspension. Senna warmed to the technology whereas say Mansell wanted nothing to do with it. Can't remember which year but there was a Lotus with a clever ride height system.
Funny I've just finished reading the 1987 Autocourse annual (got 86-89 on a mega bargain recently) and he states that he left Lotus because he wasn't happy with the progress of the active suspension system. They dropped it in 1988 too.
Donlupedron is offline


Old 08-24-2012, 04:06 PM   #19
flower-buy

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
377
Senior Member
Default
Yes but had Senna been around today, he would have been shaped by the same forces as other drivers today.
The Senna born in 1960 would be a different Senna to one born in 1987. To that end, Senna's contemporary would have been Vettel.

The sheer and utter ruthlessness that 60 Senna showed would have been identical to an 87 Senna. Conditions are vastly different, but I still suspect that our hypothetical Senna would have been in a top team (probably in Massa's or Webber's seat) and been winning GPs anyway.

Senna did make a Toleman score fastest laps and did win grands prix in the Lotus. Piquet Jr. did neither the Renault, even though Alonso proved that the car was capable of winning grands prix.



Bellof would have had to have passed both of them. That's a tall very order indeed.
Yep, people always go on about Senna in that race but Bellof was faster than both of them and another amazing talent who life was cut too short. Senna was the kind of driver that would have been in a top team no matter what and, in my opinion, he would have kicked Vettel's ass.
flower-buy is offline


Old 08-24-2012, 08:43 PM   #20
CathBraunn

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
445
Senior Member
Default
..he would have kicked Vettel's ass.
Vettel who?
CathBraunn is offline



Reply to Thread New Thread

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:04 AM.
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
Design & Developed by Amodity.com
Copyright© Amodity