Ayrton Senna, the movie... Legendary F1 driver

[archaeicbloke]

I'm dieing to see this movie! has anybody seen it yet? recommend a place to see it online maybe? sometimes documentaries are offered free to the public by the producer lol....

Anyways, Video preview here: http://tinyurl.com/4js3sdl (I also included a video that explains how and why he crashed) For those who have seen it, what did you think of it? I'm worried it comes off a little drawn out, but then theres some parts of the trailer that are really fast paced and full of action.

The trailer seems like it doesn't really do it justice, but its the only english one I could find. theres a good german one and Japanese one though if you understand them.

[Speckid4]

My inspiration. Please somebody find the movie!

Speckid

[flohtingPoint]

Unfortunately I missed the American public release in NY (I was in NJ and didn't know, they didn't advertise it at all). I too cannot wait to see film, but I do have a lot of reserves about it; mainly that of not telling the full story of Ayrton. Yes, he was a great and kind man, but he was also ruthlessly cutthroat and had no qualms about putting his car in a place that would make you either wreck or back off. This past year Schumi inched over on Rubens and almost had him stuff it and the F1 world went berserk about it, but all I thought was, "If Ayrton was driving, Barrichello would have been in the wall or you'd have seen puffs of smoke as the brakes locked..."

[Bubba1]

Unfortunately I missed the American public release in NY (I was in NJ and didn't know, they didn't advertise it at all). I too cannot wait to see film, but I do have a lot of reserves about it; mainly that of not telling the full story of Ayrton. Yes, he was a great and kind man, but he was also ruthlessly cutthroat and had no qualms about putting his car in a place that would make you either wreck or back off. This past year Schumi inched over on Rubens and almost had him stuff it and the F1 world went berserk about it, but all I thought was, "If Ayrton was driving, Barrichello would have been in the wall or you'd have seen puffs of smoke as the brakes locked..."

Yes, while Senna was a ruthless driver, his pure driving talent cannot be disputed. And his willingness to make such aggressive moves during races especially in the rain, made him a human highlight film. I'm looking forward to seeing the film.

As far as the greatest F1 driver ever, I think there were a few others that were better than Senna. Fangio won nearly half the F1 races he started and finished on the podium 2/3's of the time. that's unbelievable. Unfortunately his feats were accomplished before many Senna fans were born and before Youtube.

Jim Clark won 1/3 of the F1 races he started. Senna, by comparison, won about 1/4. Clark also died tragically at an early age. I think had he lived, he might have broken several records that Senna could not have reached. But that's all speculation.

[flohtingPoint]

As far as the greatest F1 driver ever, I think there were a few others that were better than Senna. Fangio won nearly half the F1 races he started and finished on the podium 2/3's of the time. that's unbelievable. Unfortunately his feats were accomplished before many Senna fans were born and before Youtube.

Jim Clark won 1/3 of the F1 races he started. Senna, by comparison, won about 1/4. Clark also died tragically at an early age. I think had he lived, he might have broken several records that Senna could not have reached. But that's all speculation.

Fangio doesn't really count since F1 was hardly developed so it was easy to have a winning dynasty. It's like comparing Yale and Princeton to teams of the modern era in College Football. Yea, both those teams won more championships than anyone, but there wasn't even the resemblance of parity in football back then.

The rain driving was definitely a specialty of Senna, but where he really sparkled was qualifying. Nobody in the modern era has a better strike rate than he (or even comes close, Senna's rate was around 40% IIRC) for pole and that's saying a ton as the drivers from his time were legends (Piquet, Prost, Mansell, Lauda, etc).

[archaeicbloke]

they're saying its due out publicly this june/july on some of the other forums.... I hope it does the man justice... remember this is the "Un-Authorized" story, meaning his family/estate had no say on what the video reports... so it could go either way.

you're right about him cutting people off and his attitude towards driving, but lets be honest, thats what wins races, and thats what dedication at any expense means. truly.

[Bubba1]

[Fangio doesn't really count since F1 was hardly developed so it was easy to have a winning dynasty. It's like comparing Yale and Princeton to teams of the modern era in College Football. Yea, both those teams won more championships than anyone, but there wasn't even the resemblance of parity in football back then.

The rain driving was definitely a specialty of Senna, but where he really sparkled was qualifying. Nobody in the modern era has a better strike rate than he (or even comes close, Senna's rate was around 40% IIRC) for pole and that's saying a ton as the drivers from his time were legends (Piquet, Prost, Mansell, Lauda, etc).

C'mon, Fangio absolutely counts. You could argue also that the less sophisticated cars of Fangio's era required more skill to drive than than the expensive comparative technological terrors of Senna's era. In the stat that matters most, wins. Senna won 41 of 162 F1 races, which is about 25%. Jim Clark won a full third of his races! Sir Jackie Stewart won 27 of 99, which is also better than Senna. Even Schumaker has a better winning percentage. Besides winning the drivers crown 5 times, Fangio started 48 of them from the front row, a better strike rate than Senna.

Senna was a brilliant driver and clearly a top 10, and his driving style made him a popular figure, but I think Clark and Fangio were better and more dominant in their eras.

[flohtingPoint]

C'mon, Fangio absolutely counts. You could argue also that the less sophisticated cars of Fangio's era required more skill to drive than than the expensive comparative technological terrors of Senna's era. In the stat that matters most, wins. Senna won 41 of 162 F1 races, which is about 25%. Jim Clark won a full third of his races! Sir Jackie Stewart won 27 of 99, which is also better than Senna. Even Schumaker has a better winning percentage. Besides winning the drivers crown 5 times, Fangio started 48 of them from the front row, a better strike rate than Senna.

Senna was a brilliant driver and clearly a top 10, and his driving style made him a popular figure, but I think Clark and Fangio were better and more dominant in their eras.

For all intents and purposes, Fangio and even Clark drove in a totally different sport. There where dozens of teams when they were driving, hardly any of them made it to the grid, the rules were designed and set by the very teams that Ascari and Fangio drove for (so they had a leg up on design then everyone else). Their races were more of a war of attrition than breakneck speed (cause they weren't that fast to begin with). It's not until you get to the 70's that parity and real speed began to surface. The cars of the modern era were/are more balanced (due to much more regulations) and they're infinitely faster, making the driver much more important than in the past.

Another good comparison of Fangio/Clark to modern era drivers: Otto Graham. Otto won 7 championships and went to 9 or 10 of the big dances but nobody brings up his name when talking about the best QB ever. Why? Because it was a totally different game.

Schumacher is a totally different story. He had Ross Brawn, Rory Byrne, Jean Todt and a tire supplier basing their design off Ferrari's data. From 2000-2004, F1 was basically Spec-Michael. His driver crop he was competing against was savagely lacking too. They were more products of Adrian Newey's design (like Damon Hill and JV) then they were good drivers.

[Bubba1]

[For all intents and purposes, Fangio and even Clark drove in a totally different sport. There where dozens of teams when they were driving, hardly any of them made it to the grid, the rules were designed and set by the very teams that Ascari and Fangio drove for (so they had a leg up on design then everyone else). Their races were more of a war of attrition than breakneck speed (cause they weren't that fast to begin with). It's not until you get to the 70's that parity and real speed began to surface. The cars of the modern era were/are more balanced (due to much more regulations) and they're infinitely faster, making the driver much more important than in the past.

Schumacher is a totally different story. He had Ross Brawn, Rory Byrne, Jean Todt and a tire supplier basing their design off Ferrari's data. From 2000-2004, F1 was basically Spec-Michael. His driver crop he was competing against was savagely lacking too. They were more products of Adrian Newey's design (like Damon Hill and JV) then they were good drivers.

We seem to view this from opposite ends. To me, the shear volume of teams of that era, combined with a more reasonable cost to compete, means MORE competition, not less. One can easily argue the exploding cost to build a modern competitive F1 car, say in Senna's or Schumi's era, means only the best financially backed teams can even compete, reducing the number of viable competitors, thus making it easier to win.

To drive an old skinny tired front engined race car at its limits with old fashioned non-synchro transmissions (double clutching, real rev-matching), with poor brakes, with the driveshaft spinning openly under your legs, minimal safety equipment/barriers, no aerodynamic aids for downsforce, requires every bit as much skill and raw nerve as driving a modern era F1 car. Sure the speed has increased, but so has the technology. The skill sets have obviously evolved due to advancing technology, but you can absolutely compare the best drivers of one era with another.