Jump to content


Photo

What if Senna had survived his Imola accident ? I'm writing a book on the 1994 season


  • Please log in to reply
80 replies to this topic

#51 Frank Tuesday

Frank Tuesday
  • Member

  • 1,841 posts
  • Joined: August 01

Posted 01 May 2014 - 17:36

I don't think that the relative performance of the cars post-Monaco would have been the same had Senna and Ratzenberger not been killed.  In a very short period of time, we went from Hill in the Williams being no match to Schumacher in the Benetton to them being closely matched.  Is it a coincidence that that major shift in relative performance occurred at the same time that the teams had to make drastic changes to the car due to mid-season regulation changes?  Those changes hurt Benetton and benefited Williams.  Without the tragedies at Imola, Williams would have remained further behind Benetton for a longer part of the season.  Hill never would have gotten close, and I doubt that Senna would have challenged for the title. 



Advertisement

#52 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 70,106 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 01 May 2014 - 18:04

But you're forgetting that in qualifying Senna was as quick as Schumacher, the car was just poor in race trim. Which they probably would have sorted out, though I agree that the immediate car/rule changes probably tipped the competitive balance. 

 

You can assume that Senna would have done at least as well as Hill(though having Senna in subsequent races is basically chaos theory and we can no longer reasonably predict outcomes) but only for that season. After that everything basically changes. Coulthard probably doesn't drive for Williams. Which means Villeneuve may not come in, or does to replace Hill. Though Montezemolo claims Senna goes to Ferrari, I guess for 96? Which would still give us Hill/Villeneuve(or maybe Schumacher?) at Williams. Maybe Schumacher is still at Benetton in 96 and 97(and they'd be much more competitive).

 

You can barely figure out what the grid looks like, forget about performances.



#53 Frank Tuesday

Frank Tuesday
  • Member

  • 1,841 posts
  • Joined: August 01

Posted 01 May 2014 - 18:18

But you're forgetting that in qualifying Senna was as quick as Schumacher, the car was just poor in race trim. Which they probably would have sorted out, though I agree that the immediate car/rule changes probably tipped the competitive balance. 

 

You can assume that Senna would have done at least as well as Hill(though having Senna in subsequent races is basically chaos theory and we can no longer reasonably predict outcomes) but only for that season. After that everything basically changes. Coulthard probably doesn't drive for Williams. Which means Villeneuve may not come in, or does to replace Hill. Though Montezemolo claims Senna goes to Ferrari, I guess for 96? Which would still give us Hill/Villeneuve(or maybe Schumacher?) at Williams. Maybe Schumacher is still at Benetton in 96 and 97(and they'd be much more competitive).

 

You can barely figure out what the grid looks like, forget about performances.

I have no doubt that Williams would have improved the car, but the improvement wouldn't have happened as soon in the season as it had.  By that time Schumacher would have likely had a nearly insurmountable lead.  The only reason that Hill was in with a shot at the end was a couple of questionable exclusions for MS.  With the rule changes, but without the bans, Hill would have been 20-30 points down at the end of the year.  Take away the benefit of the mid-season rule changes at Hill probably would have been  40 down.  In an underperfoming car, even Senna would have been hard pressed to beat Schumacher to the title.       



#54 hogstar

hogstar
  • Member

  • 550 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 01 May 2014 - 21:51

Schumacher was too good in '94, with or without 'extra help' and I can't see Senna beating him had he of lived. Possibly '95 however. He would of then gone to Ferrari for '96 and would be disappointed, so possibly a return to McLaren before he retired in 2000.

 

I don't buy theory that Senna would of walked from Wiliams to Ferrari for '95 - That would of been a very bad move at the time - '96 yes, but not '95.  



#55 Longtimefan

Longtimefan
  • Member

  • 3,170 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 01 May 2014 - 23:37

I think if Ayrton had walked away from the Imola crash, Schumi would have still won the title.  (No, I'm not biased as I am a fan of both drivers)

 

After Imola Schumi would have been 30 points ahead and that is a great ask, would Senna have done better than Hill once they sorted out the Williams?  sure he would!! but also Schumi wouldn't have had the 'very dodgy' bans that he received that year (imo.. simply to keep the championship going).

 

1995 would have been very interesting indeed but I think Schumi would have been champion in 94, regardless.



#56 George Costanza

George Costanza
  • Member

  • 4,536 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 02 May 2014 - 01:47

I am a lifelong Schumacher fan, but I have to believe that Ayrton would have won 1995, 1996 and 1997 title if he was at Williams.... Schu would have gave it to him hard in 1995, no doubt, but the car itself was very fast and DC and Hill made some very silly mistakes that season.  It would have been close. 1994? I think that Schu's. 30 points to zero is tough to overcome, however.

 

 

I think Ayrton would have retired at Ferrari, maybe end of 1997 or 1998 season. Then Michael goes there? LdM wanted Senna after Williams stint.

 

Ayrton would have been a five time WDC at the least.


Edited by George Costanza, 02 May 2014 - 01:49.


#57 tifosiMac

tifosiMac
  • Member

  • 7,360 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 02 May 2014 - 07:15

I am not so sure Senna would have made the jump to Ferrari for 1996 as he always made a move based on having the best package and wasn't a driver that enjoyed starting completely from scratch. He had earned his status as best driver in the sport and I think anything less than a winning package would not have cut it for Ayrton. I have heard he had a desire to drive for Ferrari and I know LdM was chasing his signature, but I don't know as though he would have taken the risk. After all Schumacher himself took a lot of convincing by Todt and Weber that the Scuderia was worth the risk as Michael was keen to sign for Williams for 1996. Ferrari only found its way out of a slump due to the design direction of Byrne, and technical leadership of Brawn along with having the fastest driver at that time. Would Senna have attracted a better team of people or the same people? We just don't know really and Schumacher was a young aspiring talent at the time and tipped as the next Senna even before Ayrton's death. Lets also not forget Senna would have been 36 years old by then and would have been past his peak too. I think he would have won potentially 3 more titles with Williams based on the knowledge we have of the following years and I think he would have retired and perhaps taken up an ambassador role for the sport with his safety and charity work. 

 

Schumachers move to Ferrari reminds me very much of Hamilton to Mercedes from an outsider point of view if we can compare a recent example. The deal was done and as fans we all thought they were mad leaving championship winning teams for what appeared to be a gamble, only for them to surprise. It makes you wonder what assurances both teams gave to the drivers ahead of their signature. Michael had to wait 4 years however and put in more hard work for a return I think. A very interesting topic with no correct answers but plenty of speculation and discussion to be had :up:  :)



#58 Nemo1965

Nemo1965
  • Member

  • 7,844 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 02 May 2014 - 09:02

Having a night sleep over it, I realized that it is very easy to make 1-to-1 predictions in alternative history. Meaning: Senna survived the accident, and then the rest of the story developed from the perspective we knew but hen slightly different.

 

But just as the accident of Senna - whatever the causes - would not have happened when not every hole of the cheese aligned (will the fantastic inventor of this phrase please come forward? I don't know who it was, but I love it) - the story after the death of Senna is also 'an accident' for which all the gears had to fall in the right slots.

 

The dynamics in the team would have been totally different if Senna had survived the accident. I don't contest the idea that Senna was a better driver than Hill... but at the same time I do believe that Hills unique personality - his background, his way of dealing with technique, testing - was crucial for the upsurge of the Williams team. They would not have achieved that with any good driver. It is not even certain that they would have achieved it with Senna. Somehow the whole situation 'clicked' for Hill (and unclicked severely in Adelaide). 

 

Anyways, I look forward to reading the book. I donated for a beta-version of the book once (it went till just after the accident of Senna). 



#59 Henri Greuter

Henri Greuter
  • Member

  • 12,869 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 02 May 2014 - 10:29

Today, I finally released 'Senna versus Schumacher' It's available for free download.

 

I'm curious for your thoughts. And feel free to spread the word.

 

 

I'll send it to you PM because with my reputation over here on this forum I think that should i react in the forum would be equal to entering a fireworks story with a flame thrower for some light in the darknes....

Interesting read as far as I cam but something really struck me....

 

Henri



Advertisement

#60 tifosiMac

tifosiMac
  • Member

  • 7,360 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 02 May 2014 - 10:50

Its also work noting that the 1994 Imola weekend also changed single seater racing forever in terms of car design etc. Would high cockpit sides have been introduced had Ratzenburger and Senna been killed? Most probably they would have eventually but who knows how quickly. Also all the improvements to track safety etc etc. It took the sports biggest personality to be killed in order for safety to move up.



#61 Henri Greuter

Henri Greuter
  • Member

  • 12,869 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 02 May 2014 - 11:05

Its also work noting that the 1994 Imola weekend also changed single seater racing forever in terms of car design etc. Would high cockpit sides have been introduced had Ratzenburger and Senna been killed? Most probably they would have eventually but who knows how quickly. Also all the improvements to track safety etc etc. It took the sports biggest personality to be killed in order for safety to move up.

 

In case of talking about justice, fate was at least unbiassed while making its point about the status of safety in F1 by claiming lives at both ends of the spectrum in F1.

And the Wendlinger accident in Monaco may have added some wieght in the scales as well....

I dearly hope that it wasn't only Senna's death that was the reason for all changes. Wouldn't that be sickening to know that Ratzenberger was just an unfortunate incident, Wendlinger a lucky escape, just like Lamy?

But only and only because Senna was killed something was done? The minnows may be butchered up as long as the big names don't get killed we don't do a thing?

I hope that isn't the case.

 

Henri



#62 tifosiMac

tifosiMac
  • Member

  • 7,360 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 02 May 2014 - 13:09

In case of talking about justice, fate was at least unbiassed while making its point about the status of safety in F1 by claiming lives at both ends of the spectrum in F1.
And the Wendlinger accident in Monaco may have added some wieght in the scales as well....
I dearly hope that it wasn't only Senna's death that was the reason for all changes. Wouldn't that be sickening to know that Ratzenberger was just an unfortunate incident, Wendlinger a lucky escape, just like Lamy?
But only and only because Senna was killed something was done? The minnows may be butchered up as long as the big names don't get killed we don't do a thing?
I hope that isn't the case.
 
Henri

I very much doubt that was the case to be fair.

#63 Henri Greuter

Henri Greuter
  • Member

  • 12,869 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 02 May 2014 - 13:12

I very much doubt that was the case to be fair.

 

Let's hope so.

The thought that within the myriad of disasters of early 1994 only Senna's death was the reason to improve the safety rules......

 

 

Henri



#64 f1steveuk

f1steveuk
  • Member

  • 3,588 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 02 May 2014 - 13:20

Schumacher was too good in '94, with or without 'extra help' and I can't see Senna beating him had he of lived. Possibly '95 however. He would of then gone to Ferrari for '96 and would be disappointed, so possibly a return to McLaren before he retired in 2000.

 

I don't buy theory that Senna would of walked from Wiliams to Ferrari for '95 - That would of been a very bad move at the time - '96 yes, but not '95.  

It's not a theory. Senna had already had two meetings with LdM/Ferrari. The whole point of his move to Williams had been to benefit from that teams undoubted advantage with driver aids/car electronics. In one sweep of the hand, AFTER Senna had signed, thus to late to back out, that hoped for advantage was gone. LdM claims that Senna approached him, and asked if there was a way out of the Williams contract, which was the reason for the third meeting, due to be held the Monday after Imola, where, if the conditions on offer were good enough, Senna would sign a letter of intent for 1995, 1996 and 1997, and Ferrari would open negiotiations to buy Senna out of his contract. He was that dissapointed with the Williams performance, and he had been told that the chances of Williams getting a car, designed to run full electronics, to work without them, was highly unlikely, and that the catch up period could be as long as two years, thus Ferrari looked a better proposition. Believe me, it was 90% a done deal from 1995 onward.......



#65 DRSdisabled

DRSdisabled
  • New Member

  • 28 posts
  • Joined: February 14

Posted 03 May 2014 - 21:33

Schumacher 30, Senna 0 after Imola. Schumacher 40, Senna 6 after Monaco. No changes in the regulations would have favored Benetton in the long-run. Senna and Schumacher would have collided in a couple of races which would have further advantaged the German. I see Schumacher winning the 1994 title despite Senna's best efforts. McLaren had Hakkinen, so Senna would either have stayed with Williams - seeing the strong upswing in form in the second half of 1994 - or he would have gone to Ferrari as speculated. Like in the previous years (1990, 1991, 1992, 1993), however, he would have protracted the negotiations and would not have committed to a team until late in the season to make sure he was making the right choice.      



#66 SPBHM

SPBHM
  • Member

  • 1,068 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 03 May 2014 - 23:35

I remember reading that Senna had the plan to end his career at Ferrari and his aim was to equal the 5 titles of Fangio, but not in 95, more like 96 or 97, so if he perceived that Williams was improving the car enough I'm pretty sure he would want to stay with them for a few more years.

I'm convinced he could have won in 95 with Williams, 94 I'm not so sure, as others have said the points gap was considerable, and I'm inclined to believe Schumacher would not have suffered the same punishments that allowed Hill to fight for the title if Senna was there and getting some good results (and I have no reason to believe he would not be winning soon, first race was an honest mistake I guess, second race was not really his fault, third race, who knows, but the fact is he was on pole 3/3)

 

but who knows... he could have decided to retire had Schumacher won the title anyway (while he was 100% convinced the car was illegal) and he didn't see any action against Schumacher and specially if he kept getting DNFs, 



#67 lustigson

lustigson
  • Member

  • 5,909 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 06 May 2014 - 08:27

Has any of you read 'Senna versus Schumacher' yet? I'm curious for your thoughts.

 

http://bit.ly/Senna-versus-Schumacher



#68 Henri Greuter

Henri Greuter
  • Member

  • 12,869 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 06 May 2014 - 11:13

Has any of you read 'Senna versus Schumacher' yet? I'm curious for your thoughts.

 

http://bit.ly/Senna-versus-Schumacher

 

 

I've finished reading it as we discussed on PM.

 

But my opinion hasn't changed

 

To me you have put MS looking even worse of a bastard than he already was while you've kind of glorified "Santa Senna" and omitted the "Satan Senna" within his track personality as we have seen till his death in the Senna you've created. You've turned poor pityful "Santa Senna" as the main victim of the evil German and his cheating team while including little to nothing of the ruthless arrogance and selfishness Senna as he was known for in the past as well, (But nowadays largely forgotten/ignored: nothing but good about the dead....)

 

Point is that I've seen much more of that "Satan Senna" behaviour then such "Santa Senna" on track until May 1 1994. So where you find that inspiration to put him in the pityful victim of MS role where you put him is a bit beyond me.

I think that what you've let happen within your story to make him `see the light` was by far and away not enough for the real Senna to come to grips with reality. The Stewart interview in Australia 1990 tells me enough on that...... His reactions against Irvinve in 1993 and Hakkinen in 1994 only confirm such even more.

 

Having said that, I will acknowledge as the first man out here that I am probably the biggest Senna disliker anywhere in the world which no doubt must have an influence on my opinion.

But again: Kudo's for your attempts. Certainly interesting read with interesting visions of what could have happened if it comes to who went where.

Let's agree to disagree on certain aspects of the personalities.

 

 

Henri


Edited by Henri Greuter, 06 May 2014 - 11:20.


#69 lustigson

lustigson
  • Member

  • 5,909 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 06 May 2014 - 12:36

Thanks, Henri, for your reply. I'm sad to see that my attempt at a nuanced view of Senna — he wasn't the saint he was made out to be, again, over the past few days — either haven't come across as intended, or have not been able to convince you. Nevertheless, let's agree to disagree, indeed.



#70 Henri Greuter

Henri Greuter
  • Member

  • 12,869 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 06 May 2014 - 13:39

Thanks, Henri, for your reply. I'm sad to see that my attempt at a nuanced view of Senna — he wasn't the saint he was made out to be, again, over the past few days — either haven't come across as intended, or have not been able to convince you. Nevertheless, let's agree to disagree, indeed.

 

 

No problem Lustigson,

 

After watching Suzuka '89 and '90 as well as to some extend '91 but most of all reading about what happened in the press conference of Suzuka '91 It is no longer possible for anyone out on this world anymore to make me change my opinion on Senna.

You gave yourself a task that could be done with many people out here but not with me.

I have seen too much ego, selfishness ad utter disrepect for anybody but himself to be able to be convinced he could change his opinions and come to grip with the facts what he has causeed for F1 and within F1 like you wrote in your manuscript. With me you had an mission impossible on your hands.

But I'm not gonna try to convince others that my opinion on him is the right one either.

 

Like I've said before: Entering the world of the subject Senna is for me something like entering a warehouse loaded wth ammunition and fireworks where all the lights are out and with me only having a flamethrower to create light where I'm going.

At the time of his death, I hated him. yes indeed, I hated him. Can't lie about that and I won't do so.

I don't hate him anymore but still I overreact with feelings of anger and disgust when i think about him and write about him.

I said I hated him on May 1, 1994. But that doesn't mean that I wanted him dead. or celebrate his death.

I was shocked by the events of that day. From the PMs we exchanged you understand why.

 

"Santa Senna" for his fans, "Satan Senna" is what he is to me. The more while the negative parts of his legacy can still be seen ever so often within the current racing.

Satan, Santa, same letters, but jiggled a bit and the meaning of the words give a difference out of this world.

 

 

Last comment, all this is valid for the driver Senna. I'm giving the person Senna away from the track the benefit of the doubt. I can't decide on that since I don't know enough about him in private live.

 

Henri


Edited by Henri Greuter, 06 May 2014 - 13:41.


#71 kayemod

kayemod
  • Member

  • 9,576 posts
  • Joined: August 05

Posted 06 May 2014 - 13:48

I think that Henri meant to write 'Saint Senna' rather than 'Santa Senna', Santa would give presents, which isn't something that either Senna or Schumacher were ever noted for, on-track at any rate. I think it was Schumacher who said "Everyone knows I don't give presents" in a pitiful attempt to excuse his potentially-murderous squeeze against the pit wall on a clearly faster Rubens Barrichello wall a year or two from the end of his second F1 career.

 

Not for one moment would I deny Senna's undoubted talent, but I agree with most of what Henri posted above, very much a dark side to both him and MS.

 

http://www.telegraph...n-downfall.html

 

This is an interesting opinion from today's Telegraph, from someone eminently qualified to express such an opinion, but like Sir Jackies earlier one, not a fanboy friendly comment.



#72 Henri Greuter

Henri Greuter
  • Member

  • 12,869 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 06 May 2014 - 13:59

I think that Henri meant to write 'Saint Senna' rather than 'Santa Senna', Santa would give presents, which isn't something that either Senna or Schumacher were ever noted for, on-track at any rate. I think it was Schumacher who said "Everyone knows I don't give presents" in a pitiful attempt to excuse his potentially-murderous squeeze against the pit wall on a clearly faster Rubens Barrichello wall a year or two from the end of his second F1 career.

 

Not for one moment would I deny Senna's undoubted talent, but I agree with most of what Henri posted above, very much a dark side to both him and MS.

 

http://www.telegraph...n-downfall.html

 

This is an interesting opinion from today's Telegraph, from someone eminently qualified to express such an opinion, but like Sir Jackies earlier one, not a fanboy friendly comment.

 

Kayemod,

 

My knowledge of the Latin languages isn't good enough to know the difference between a Santa and a Saint. But for me they come close enough to use the Santa expression for it. The more given Senna's (South american) heritage though I have no knowledge of Santa being a portuguese word either.

And like I pointed out, it is easier to use the word Santa to modify into a word that describes what I think of him.

 

And you are right: some of his talents as a driver are beyond belief, no doubt about that. But I find it difficult to stell respect these, let alone admire them,  when falling back on distasteful actions once the best he had to give (which was better than most of his opponents) was no longer good enough anymore to get whatever it was that he wanted.

 

henri



#73 lustigson

lustigson
  • Member

  • 5,909 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 18 June 2014 - 09:57

Any other people who read the story? I'd love to hear from you.



#74 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • Racing Sims Forum Host

  • 45,984 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 19 June 2014 - 12:11

Any other people who read the story? I'd love to hear from you.

 

I'd really like to, so I'll have to try to remember when I have some free time.

 

Edit:

 

I've read the first chapter. I've enjoyed your treatment of 1994. Many of the events are as I would have them in my version, but others are different.

 

Monaco and Spain I like.

 

Then I'd have maybe given Senna a win or two in Canada and France, depending on how it would affect the points, because...

 

...I would not have included the events of Silverstone so accurately as in real life. Frankly I'll never fathom what was going through Michael or the Benetton team's heads at that race, but I don't think those events would have repeated with Ayrton in the race.

 

That would then affect the 2nd half of the season more greatly. Maybe I'd keep Schumi's Belgium DSQ. Like you, I'd imagine the plank would have been included in the rules.

 

But overall, my version would have the chase failing at Suzuka with Michael taking the title with a race to spare. Also, I'd maybe have Mansell's return in Damon's place in France, and maybe for the final three too. I think there would be a good story with how their past rivalry would affect their relationship as teammates. I'm a huge fan of Damon, and in a way he might have been better employed as just a test driver during those late stages.

 

Anyway, I'll hopefully move onto "Playing Hardball" soon.


Edited by PayasYouRace, 19 June 2014 - 21:06.


#75 lustigson

lustigson
  • Member

  • 5,909 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 20 June 2014 - 06:13

I've read the first chapter. I've enjoyed your treatment of 1994. Many of the events are as I would have them in my version, but others are different.
 
Monaco and Spain I like.
 
Then I'd have maybe given Senna a win or two in Canada and France, depending on how it would affect the points, because...
 
...I would not have included the events of Silverstone so accurately as in real life. Frankly I'll never fathom what was going through Michael or the Benetton team's heads at that race, but I don't think those events would have repeated with Ayrton in the race.
 
That would then affect the 2nd half of the season more greatly. Maybe I'd keep Schumi's Belgium DSQ. Like you, I'd imagine the plank would have been included in the rules.
 
But overall, my version would have the chase failing at Suzuka with Michael taking the title with a race to spare. Also, I'd maybe have Mansell's return in Damon's place in France, and maybe for the final three too. I think there would be a good story with how their past rivalry would affect their relationship as teammates. I'm a huge fan of Damon, and in a way he might have been better employed as just a test driver during those late stages.
 
Anyway, I'll hopefully move onto "Playing Hardball" soon.


Thanks, PayasYouRace! Great to hear your thought. Some of them had crossed my mind, too, when working on the story, but I eventually decided against them.

There's nothing in your way to write an alternative, of course, containing your thought. ;-)

#76 timbo

timbo
  • Member

  • 535 posts
  • Joined: December 07

Posted 20 June 2014 - 08:39

My very humble apologies if I upset anybody, and no, I haven't read everybodies replies, but nothing is going to change. Unfortunately he is still dead, and what if's and maybe's are just that. There are so many what if's throughout motor racing and life in general, and sometimes you just have to face the fact that's it and nothing can change it. A bit cold, I know, but what if's mean nothing to me. There are so many what if's you could say about so many drivers, such as Bruce McLaren, Jochen Rindt, Ronnie Petersen, even Mark Webber if Seb.Vettel decided he'd rather play lawn bowls, that sometimes you just have to face the facts. Feel free to reply, even shoot me down, but this is how I feel, and this is a forum to have your say.

Edited by timbo, 20 June 2014 - 08:42.


#77 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • Racing Sims Forum Host

  • 45,984 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 20 June 2014 - 09:04

My very humble apologies if I upset anybody, and no, I haven't read everybodies replies, but nothing is going to change. Unfortunately he is still dead, and what if's and maybe's are just that. There are so many what if's throughout motor racing and life in general, and sometimes you just have to face the fact that's it and nothing can change it. A bit cold, I know, but what if's mean nothing to me. There are so many what if's you could say about so many drivers, such as Bruce McLaren, Jochen Rindt, Ronnie Petersen, even Mark Webber if Seb.Vettel decided he'd rather play lawn bowls, that sometimes you just have to face the facts. Feel free to reply, even shoot me down, but this is how I feel, and this is a forum to have your say.

 

You're not the only one to express this sort of opinion, so this isn't necessarily directed at you. This isn't about trying to change anything, it's about having fun through imagination. It's about creating a compelling and maybe realistic story, depending on what you want to get out of it.

 

If it doesn't mean anything to you, you have no obligation to contribute. Nobody's going to get upset that you'd rather not imagine an alternative history, but don't think you're going to stop anyone from having a bit of fun with it.



#78 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • Racing Sims Forum Host

  • 45,984 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 20 June 2014 - 17:56

Thanks, PayasYouRace! Great to hear your thought. Some of them had crossed my mind, too, when working on the story, but I eventually decided against them.

There's nothing in your way to write an alternative, of course, containing your thought. ;-)

 

OK I enjoyed your take on 1995, though it did seem a bit like Hill was just taking all of Coulthard's roles during the season. Interesting silly season. Senna to be reunited with Berger but at Ferrari, Schumacher and Alesi at Benetton and Williams as in real life. I don't know if it was an oversight or if you planned it, but I liked the touch of Martin Brundle remaining at McLaren alongside Hakkinen. Obviously, Mansell never returned to F1 so he wouldn't have been in the picture at McLaren for '95.

 

Next chapter, "Musical Chairs".

 

Oh and I might end up writing an alternate history, but on one of my own favourite subjects. What 1997 would have looked like with Hill remaining at Williams.


Edited by PayasYouRace, 20 June 2014 - 18:20.


#79 lustigson

lustigson
  • Member

  • 5,909 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 23 June 2014 - 06:30

My very humble apologies if I upset anybody, and no, I haven't read everybodies replies, but nothing is going to change. Unfortunately he is still dead, and what if's and maybe's are just that. There are so many what if's throughout motor racing and life in general, and sometimes you just have to face the fact that's it and nothing can change it. A bit cold, I know, but what if's mean nothing to me. There are so many what if's you could say about so many drivers, such as Bruce McLaren, Jochen Rindt, Ronnie Petersen, even Mark Webber if Seb.Vettel decided he'd rather play lawn bowls, that sometimes you just have to face the facts. Feel free to reply, even shoot me down, but this is how I feel, and this is a forum to have your say.

 

Thanks, Timo. Like PayasYouRace said, you're not the first to say this. And you're quite right, indeed: nothing's going to change.

 

However, since many people — not just on this forum, but elsewhere, too — asked themselves and each other, what if Senna hadn't died, I thought I'd write that story.

 

So, I'd still like to invite you to read it. I'm curious whether you like it or not.



Advertisement

#80 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • Racing Sims Forum Host

  • 45,984 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 11 July 2014 - 07:06

I finished it last night lustigson. Very enjoyable. 1996/7 was interesting. Glad Brundle got a win there. 1998 was quite strange with the role reversal.

 

As you got me in the mood, I'm up to the French Grand Prix of my writing an alternative 1997.



#81 Nemo1965

Nemo1965
  • Member

  • 7,844 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 11 July 2014 - 17:12

I've finished reading it as we discussed on PM.

 

But my opinion hasn't changed

 

To me you have put MS looking even worse of a bastard than he already was while you've kind of glorified "Santa Senna" and omitted the "Satan Senna" within his track personality as we have seen till his death in the Senna you've created. You've turned poor pityful "Santa Senna" as the main victim of the evil German and his cheating team while including little to nothing of the ruthless arrogance and selfishness Senna as he was known for in the past as well, (But nowadays largely forgotten/ignored: nothing but good about the dead....)

 

Point is that I've seen much more of that "Satan Senna" behaviour then such "Santa Senna" on track until May 1 1994. So where you find that inspiration to put him in the pityful victim of MS role where you put him is a bit beyond me.

I think that what you've let happen within your story to make him `see the light` was by far and away not enough for the real Senna to come to grips with reality. The Stewart interview in Australia 1990 tells me enough on that...... His reactions against Irvinve in 1993 and Hakkinen in 1994 only confirm such even more.

 

Having said that, I will acknowledge as the first man out here that I am probably the biggest Senna disliker anywhere in the world which no doubt must have an influence on my opinion.

But again: Kudo's for your attempts. Certainly interesting read with interesting visions of what could have happened if it comes to who went where.

Let's agree to disagree on certain aspects of the personalities.

 

 

Henri

 

Hi

 

I agree with Henri's criticism of Senna but I find the turn-about that Lustigson eloborated on in his book not implausible. I think the big difference between Schumacher and Senna, is that later in his career Senna did show he started to see his own mortatility. Of course, de mortibus de nil si bene, many witnesses to that idea - of the mellowing Senna - is because of the idea that someone who dies always seem nicer than someone who lives. But there is one very credible witness: Sid Watkins. He has said, many times, in no few words, that to him Senna was not the bastard other people saw in him and that the Senna of 1994 was a complete different person than the Senna who threw a hissy-fit when Jacky Stewart confronted him with some justified criticism.

 

On top of Watkins 'testimony' there are some things that were plain to see, for us the fans. His reaction after the crash of Comas, his reaction after the crash of Barrichello, Ratzenberger in Imola, his radio-message to Prost on the grid.

 

So, Lustigson, I enjoyed reading your book. As an editor, I would have advised you to stop the story at 1994, because I think an alternative history book needs a short time-frame. But now I am getting to specialistic...