6 replies to this topic

[D.M.N.]

I recently bought a book on Ayrton Senna which was released 5 years ago. In it, includes detail of a 'rivalry' between Senna and Brundle from the lower formulas. The author states the thing that seperated Senna and Brundle was that Senna wanted to get to the top, yet Brundle just wanted to get into F1.

If this was the case, did Senna consider Brundle a full rival? Would you only consider someone a rival if they had the same ambition. Also, did Brundle not actually want to get to the top - or is that one of those optical illusions that appears?

I think Brundle could have got to the top, but was his confidence knocked from his crash in Dallas 1984 when he broke both ankles, and thus prevent a future Senna/Brundle rivalry to re-emerge? Or is this a case of talent fading when it was needed, i.e. brilliant in lower formulae, fail to impress in the big time?

Thoughts, mainly asking:

a) did Senna think MB was a rival
b) did MB's crash knock his confidence; and thus prevent the rivalry from having a "Part II"?

Edited by D.M.N., 02 September 2009 - 17:34.

[rdmotorsport]

I recently bought a book on Ayrton Senna which was released 5 years ago. In it, includes detail of a 'rivalry' between Senna and Brundle from the lower formulas. The author states the thing that seperated Senna and Brundle was that Senna wanted to get to the top, yet Brundle just wanted to get into F1.

If this was the case, did Senna consider Brundle a full rival? Would you only consider someone a rival if they had the same ambition. Also, did Brundle not actually want to get to the top - or is that one of those optical illusions that appears?

I think Brundle could have got to the top, but was his confidence knocked from his crash in Dallas 1984 when he broke both ankles, and thus prevent a future Senna/Brundle rivalry to re-emerge? Or is this a case of talent fading when it was needed, i.e. brilliant in lower formulae, fail to impress in the big time?

Thoughts, mainly asking:

a) did Senna think MB was a rival
b) did MB's crash knock his confidence; and thus prevent the rivalry from having a "Part II"?

I think that would be a YES to both

[COUGAR508]

Obviously, Senna saw Brundle as a rival in F3, and probably in their first year of F1. However, I always felt that Senna's eyes were firmly on the prize, and therefore from 1985 onwards he saw others as his main adversaries.

Brundle's Dallas accident did affect his career trajectory, and he also had a fairly sizeable shunt at Monaco that year.

[john aston]

Author of book may have had view but doubt if it has much basis in reality.Ex post facto rationalisation is a bit facile when it comes to two young men who were more concerned at winning races than their destiny.Both were quick ,hard racers- Brundle should not be underestimated- he was a deserving GP driver- but Senna was quicker and after the wins came Senna seemed to go into messiah mode.

[NanningF1fan]

I think the number of times Senna and Brundle collided when trying to pass one another in Formula 3 shows how seriously each viewed the other as a rival. Neither was willing to give an inch. Both moved into F1 with back of the grid teams. Brundle went to Tyrell and Senna to Toleman. I think the big difference emerged at Monaco in 1984. It was then that Senna's brilliance in the rain began to mark him out. It became established in folklore that Senna would have won the '84 Monaco GP in a Toleman if it had not been chequered flagged early allegedly to preserve Prost's lead. That was when the big teams such as Lotus and Mclaren started sniffing around Senna for 85.

According to my brother who was there Bellof in the Tyrell was actually catching both Prost and Senna and would have won if the race had gone the distance. The fact that Bellof was Brundle's team mate probably didn't help his case in comparison with Senna. Neither did the scandal at the end of the season about Tyrell running under weight. Remember all their points for the season were stripped away by the FIA and it may be that Brundle's results were viewed as suspect by other teams.

These factors as well as his Dallas shunt counted against Brundle but I don't think anyone at the time questioned his desire. I know I didn't. I witnessed Brundle's speed and commitment into the Woodcote chicane on the Silverstone GP circuit during the 1983 F3 season and that left me in no doubt that he was very serious.

Edited by NanningF1fan, 03 September 2009 - 08:39.

[David Force]

Their rivalry extended beyond F3, the battle between the two at the British Grand Prix in 1992 was fantastic in evenly matched cars. Every lap as they left Copse I anticipated they would not return, this really was a fight with no quarter given, each as brave and committed as the other which says an enormous amount for Brundle.

As with Schumacher, later, there were other drivers who could be as quick on occasions but it was the enormous self belief and consistently high level of performance which put the true greats apart.

Martin is a proper bloke and was a top flight racing driver deserving of Grand Prix victories.

[Stephen W]

From my first glimpse of Senna driving in Formula Ford, through Formula Ford 2000 and F3 my view of him slowly changed. Initially I thought that this was a young driver who deserved to get into F1. During his FF2000 season I thought that this was a driver who could go on to win GPs. Once in F3 I thought that he could go on to be World Champion if he got the breaks.

Martin Brundle on the other hand always struck me as a very good driver who deserved to get ahead in his career. I suspect if he had landed the Lotus drive or possibly the number two seat at McLaren then the result would have been different. He didn't so his career followed the path that it did.

Of the two I would have always put my money on Senna making it to the very top, whilst Brundle was to me a 'might be' - a talented driver who could go all the way if only ......