wasn't this the year when won the championship after not racing the previous year due to Ferrari not liking him for publicly slagging the Ferrari car he was driving in 91?
@YRHDB, Williams was still well superior in 93. That's the overall picture. In some races it may have been that Williams wasn't quite dominant, but no more than that. Senna got 5 wins that year, that was purely down to his excellence that year.
at 38 I believe that Prost had had is battles and was not willing to put in the effort or the fight anymore, so I do agree in some point. Was it important enough for him to go through all that again. I agree no. If He he could look into the future and see what was going to happen, I think He would have stayed. But fate step in and their history ended In San Marino
Hill who was crusing had the fastest lap of the race nearly 1 second faster than Senna. The Williams was far superior, Senna would have won the race be a huge margin in the Williams. Hakkinen in the other McLaren was blown away by both Wiliams.
Not on a street circuit. He also lost the previous race in Suzuka with a ridiculous car advantage.(His fastest lap was 2 seconds faster than the rest.)
i believe Prost was right to do so, he named Senna for McLaren from the beginning, then they fought there, and he left the best car then (The McLaren Honda) for Senna, do u expect him to open his arms to senna again on williams to have more troubles??!!
What relevance does one race like Suzuka 89 have when you ignore all the others races when Senna was faster than Prost from 88-89. And by the way Senna caught Prost in Suzuka/ Back to Adelaide 1993, Hakkinen was in the other McLaren and he was a much faster driver than Hill but was easily beaten by both William cars and Schumacher's Benetton before he retired. That proved that McLaren was not the best car, otherwise Mikka would at the least be troubling the Williams, not struggling in 5th place.
The Williams was faster than the McLaren in this race, that is the only fact. Hill and Prost both had faster laps than Senna and should have won, they had the better car.
You are a prost fanboy, and according to you Prost can't lose in the best car, so you make up excuses when he does. And by the way I am a Schumacher fan not a Senna fan, I am not biased towards either. And Schumacher lost also when he had the best car, like Spa 2004 when Kimi beat him, you need to be less biased just because you love Prost.
Complete nonsense. The Williams fastest laps demonstrated it was much faster. McLaren wan't even the 2nd best car, Benetton was (with it's better ford HBVIII engines). The only difference in this race compared to earlier in the season was that instead of being 2 seconds a lap faster the Wililams was around 1 second a lap faster and Hill and Prost weren't use to actually racing after Taxi driving for the entire season.
It takes some seriously amazing skill to drive those Formula One cars as smoothly and precisely as Alain Prost did.
or a computer
Merci Alain Prost,the best driver f1,no doubt
PROST is the great of the greats
THE FW15C WAS A KILLER CAR. BEAUTIFUL,FAST, THE BEST OF TECHNOLOGY. WAS MADE TO WIN
McLaren used also a active suspension car in 1993
@dalebshelton but if you say Prost walked away from the McLaren battle... do you still value Prost as much as Senna after that realization?
@rvind92g I mean cornering speed. Looks like so much more grip..
wasn't this the year when won the championship after not racing the previous year due to Ferrari not liking him for publicly slagging the Ferrari car he was driving in 91?
damn F1 went fast those days....
@YRHDB, Williams was still well superior in 93. That's the overall picture. In some races it may have been that Williams wasn't quite dominant, but no more than that. Senna got 5 wins that year, that was purely down to his excellence that year.
this was Ayrton Senna's only pole position of 1993
@rapperzondernaam It's faster today actually.
This isn't from the race, but from Qualification....
at 38 I believe that Prost had had is battles and was not willing to put in the effort or the fight anymore, so I do agree in some point. Was it important enough for him to go through all that again. I agree no. If He he could look into the future and see what was going to happen, I think He would have stayed. But fate step in and their history ended In San Marino
Hill who was crusing had the fastest lap of the race nearly 1 second faster than Senna. The Williams was far superior, Senna would have won the race be a huge margin in the Williams.
Hakkinen in the other McLaren was blown away by both Wiliams.
Not on a street circuit. He also lost the previous race in Suzuka with a ridiculous car advantage.(His fastest lap was 2 seconds faster than the rest.)
You think suzuka was ridiculous? Better check brazil.he didnt change the tyres for rain
IS that why he was scare to have Senna as a team mate in 93
i believe Prost was right to do so, he named Senna for McLaren from the beginning, then they fought there, and he left the best car then (The McLaren Honda) for Senna,
do u expect him to open his arms to senna again on williams to have more troubles??!!
What relevance does one race like Suzuka 89 have when you ignore all the others races when Senna was faster than Prost from 88-89. And by the way Senna caught Prost in Suzuka/
Back to Adelaide 1993, Hakkinen was in the other McLaren and he was a much faster driver than Hill but was easily beaten by both William cars and Schumacher's Benetton before he retired. That proved that McLaren was not the best car, otherwise Mikka would at the least be troubling the Williams, not struggling in 5th place.
@Arska777999 Not even close.
The Williams was faster than the McLaren in this race, that is the only fact. Hill and Prost both had faster laps than Senna and should have won, they had the better car.
Senna would have had an even faster pole time in the Williams. Williams fastest lap in the race was 7 tenths quicker than the next non Williams car.
You are a prost fanboy, and according to you Prost can't lose in the best car, so you make up excuses when he does. And by the way I am a Schumacher fan not a Senna fan, I am not biased towards either. And Schumacher lost also when he had the best car, like Spa 2004 when Kimi beat him, you need to be less biased just because you love Prost.
I was watching F1 before you were born. Senna beat Prost in this race despite driving a slower McLaren. end of discussion. Period.
Complete nonsense. The Williams fastest laps demonstrated it was much faster. McLaren wan't even the 2nd best car, Benetton was (with it's better ford HBVIII engines).
The only difference in this race compared to earlier in the season was that instead of being 2 seconds a lap faster the Wililams was around 1 second a lap faster and Hill and Prost weren't use to actually racing after Taxi driving for the entire season.