Jump to content


Photo

How would F1 be if Senna had survived....


  • Please log in to reply
161 replies to this topic

#1 Barri

Barri
  • Member

  • 289 posts
  • Joined: November 01

Posted 24 August 2006 - 02:32

How many titles would he have won?? Would Schumy be what he is now??

I personally think that Senna would have gonne to Ferrari after wining the 94 season for

Williams...won many Championships...I mean..A LOT...and he would retire at Mclaren, winnig the

title of course...and by now,,, he Would be directing his own team!!...which I believe Audi would have been involved!


And Schummy Would be very unhappy driving for a unkown team at Champ Car.

Advertisement

#2 Ivan

Ivan
  • Member

  • 6,646 posts
  • Joined: March 99

Posted 24 August 2006 - 02:45

Well I think he would have stopped at 5 to tie Fangio...
Eddie Jordan tried to sell Aryton his team in '92 or '93
Michael would still have had at least two WDC's

#3 mini696

mini696
  • Member

  • 318 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 24 August 2006 - 03:31

Williams have a tendancy to dump thier drivers after winning the WDC, so I assume he would have gone back to McLaren after winning for them.

#4 OssieFan

OssieFan
  • Member

  • 830 posts
  • Joined: March 00

Posted 24 August 2006 - 03:36

I wonder how Barrichello and Ratzenberger's crashes would have affected his desicion to continue.

#5 ademm

ademm
  • Member

  • 646 posts
  • Joined: August 05

Posted 24 August 2006 - 04:31

:rotfl:
Schumi wouldnt have gone to Ferrari and would have been 10x or more WDC.

#6 HansMoleman

HansMoleman
  • Member

  • 110 posts
  • Joined: June 06

Posted 24 August 2006 - 06:47

Some of the safety regulations that were introduced after Senna's death would not have been implemented. These include banning slicks and making rear tyres smaller. Decreasing mechanical grip made overtaking more difficult, so if Senna would have survived we would have seen more interesting races. On the other hand, some of the safety regulations have probably saved lives of the other drivers.

Maybe Senna would have been able to fight Schumi a few years, but eventually he would have had to cave in. He already were in trouble with Schumi during his final year. It would have been interesting to watch Schumi and Senna battle each other, I think they are/were the two most competitive drivers in the history of F1 (which sometimes shows in bad ways).

I wonder how Barrichello and Ratzenberger's crashes would have affected his desicion to continue.



I don't think much. Senna was so competitive that he (too) would have raced even if his mother would have passed away the same weekend. Well, maybe that is an exaggeration. :rolleyes:

However, I am familiar with the story that during his final race he had a flag of Austria with him in the cockpit, in memory of Ratzenberger, so of course it did affect him.

#7 wati

wati
  • Member

  • 1,091 posts
  • Joined: May 01

Posted 24 August 2006 - 07:04

He would loose the title in 94 to Schumacher (it would have been 30 - 0 for MS after Imola). He'd dominate in the mighty williamses in 95 and 96. Then he'd retire.

Originally posted by HansMoleman
I don't think much. Senna was so competitive that he (too) would have raced even if his mother would have passed away the same weekend. Well, maybe that is an exaggeration. :rolleyes:


Well MS did it when his mom passed away ...

#8 HansMoleman

HansMoleman
  • Member

  • 110 posts
  • Joined: June 06

Posted 24 August 2006 - 07:20

Originally posted by wati
He would loose the title in 94 to Schumacher (it would have been 30 - 0 for MS after Imola). He'd dominate in the mighty williamses in 95 and 96. Then he'd retire.

Well MS did it when his mom passed away ...



Yeah, thus the roll eyes icon in my post (and the word 'too').

#9 lustigson

lustigson
  • Member

  • 4,783 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 24 August 2006 - 07:35

I think the 1994 title fight between Senna and Schumacher would have been great to watch. I wonder if Schumacher would still have been disqualified in Great Britain and Belgium and not allowed to start in Italy and Portugal. Damon Hill won all those races, so I reckon Senna would have done the same. That way the championship could still have gone down the wire in Oz. And perhaps Senna would have been smart enough NOT to want to immediately overtake Schumacher after his off. And even if he did, Williams would probably have sent him back onto the track with the bent wishbone, because they wouldn't have lost a driver earlier in the season. So, Senna might have won the title with a couple of points to spare by finising, say, fifth.

For the following seasons, I guess Senna would've given Schumacher quite a run for his money in 1995. A bit more than Hill, I believe. However, would Benetton still have gotten the Renault engines with Senna winning the 1994 championship? Furthermore, I seem to remember Senna only had a two-year contract with Williams, so it might have been Senna and not Schumacher who would have moved to Ferrari in 1996 (with Schumacher perhaps going to Williams or McLaren). But somehow I don't believe he would have had the succes there that Schumacher had, lacking the input of the Brawns and Byrnes, who might have moved with Schumacher to where-ever he had gone).

#10 xype

xype
  • Member

  • 3,519 posts
  • Joined: September 04

Posted 24 August 2006 - 08:12

Most likely Senna would have won 1994 or 1995 or both, allowing Villeneuve to join Schumacher at Ferrari in 1996 (since Schumacher would have less pedigree). Senna and Hill stay at Williams maybe even in 1997 (or DC instead of Hill). Benetton would probably be Jordan-like with their performance with the odd win but no real challengers after Schumacher left (I still believe Todt would get the Brawn, Byrne, Schuey trio on board). But other than 1997 or 1998, it's difficult to predict any further.

#11 PhilKerr

PhilKerr
  • Member

  • 1,572 posts
  • Joined: May 04

Posted 24 August 2006 - 08:18

Senna would not have made up 30 points on Schumacher in 94

Schumacher's 2 race ban was purely political because the FIA and Bernie wanted Hill to close the gap and take it to the final race as they wanted emotional speeches about "this is for you Ayrton" and tugging on emotional heartstrings of fans of Damon winning the title for Senna

The 94 Williams did not suit Senna's driving style, he complained about the car being ill handling, the smoother Damon could handle the car better

Had Senna survived he would have lost the 94 title to Schumi with no Schumi 2 race ban, 95 would have been close but Schumi would have won again, Hill made mistakes that year but not enough to explain that points gap to Schumi, the Benetton was simply a better car

Senna would have probably won in a dominant car in 96 then retired at 37

#12 selespeed

selespeed
  • Member

  • 1,070 posts
  • Joined: May 05

Posted 24 August 2006 - 08:33

Schumacher's 2 race ban was purely political because the FIA and Bernie wanted Hill to close the gap and take it to the final race as they wanted emotional speeches about "this is for you Ayrton" and tugging on emotional heartstrings of fans of Damon winning the title for Senna




if ayrton was around benetton would be disqualified for number of iregularities.


The 94 Williams did not suit Senna's driving style, he complained about the car being ill handling, the smoother Damon could handle the car better




wow! poor ayrton couldn't handle the car like damon so he was up to 1sec faster in qualilfying and laping him i n brasil.

#13 Kubica

Kubica
  • Member

  • 41 posts
  • Joined: April 06

Posted 24 August 2006 - 08:35

Originally posted by PhilKerr
the Benetton was simply a better car

Its common mistake .
Benetton 95 wasnt better car than Williams.
12 Pole postions for Williams (7x hill and 5 n00b DC ) Benetton only 4 (all M.S).
This big points difference was made by Hill's mistakes and Williams was "owned" by Benetton lots of times.
Team mistakes cost hill lots of points.../
In addition Schumacher was much better than Hill.


in 94 was close because of Schumacher DQ ,btw Hill has won only once when Schumacher was on track....(in spain he has problems so dont count it)
Schumacher got 3 races ban (Silverstone ,portugal and Italy) for overtaking during formation lap.
He did it coz he knew that Hill was under enormous pressure.
Im 100% sure he wouldnt have done this on Senna . HE had respect to him .

For those who think that Senna would won title in 94 easliy ..even without DQ for Schumacher.
I dont think so ,he was making mistakes this year..,THe GOD made spin at his HOME track ,then wheelspin at the start in Aida ....
So it wouldnt be EASY.....

#14 denthierry

denthierry
  • Member

  • 1,269 posts
  • Joined: January 04

Posted 24 August 2006 - 08:37

what kind of thread is that??? if if if??
if my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle ! Nah!

#15 PhilKerr

PhilKerr
  • Member

  • 1,572 posts
  • Joined: May 04

Posted 24 August 2006 - 08:39

Originally posted by Kubica

Its common mistake .
Benetton 95 wasnt better car than Williams.
12 Pole postions for Williams (7x hill and 5 n00b DC ) Benetton only 4 (all M.S).
This big points difference was made by Hill's mistakes and Williams was "owned" by Benetton lots of times.
Team mistakes cost hill lots of points.../
Believe me or not Schumacher was much better than Hill.


in 94 was close because of Schumacher DQ ,btw Hill has won only once when Schumacher was on track....(in spain he has problems so dont count it)

Schumacher got 3 races ban (Silverstone ,portugal and Italy) for overtaking during formation lap.
He did it coz he knew that Hill is under enormous pressure.
Im 100% sure he wouldnt have done this on Senna . HE had respect to him .


Overtaking on a formation lap is a trivial offence in the grand scheme of things, it does not put lives at risk or endanger safety, it is a procedural issue that should have been dealt with by a stop and go penalty or a fine not a multiple race ban, the overtaking on formation lap punishment was purely to prolong the championship

#16 Mox

Mox
  • Member

  • 3,195 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 24 August 2006 - 08:44

Schumacher would have won '94 and '95 in the superior Benetton.

Senna would win '96 in the superior Williams.

JVi would beat Senna in '97 in equal cars.

Then Senna would retire at 38.

#17 Lifew12

Lifew12
  • Member

  • 4,551 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 24 August 2006 - 08:45

Originally posted by Ivan

Eddie Jordan tried to sell Aryton his team in '92 or '93


Where do you get that idea from?

I would have relished Ayton v Michael.

#18 mikedeering

mikedeering
  • Member

  • 3,521 posts
  • Joined: July 00

Posted 24 August 2006 - 08:49

If, if, if.

Had Senna stayed at Williams, he would surely have been WDC in 95/96/97. The Williams was the car to have in those seasons. And presumably if Senna were still around, Renault would never have gone to Benetton for 1995. He would have turned 37 in 1997 so that seems a good time to retire to me.

1994 is a difficult one - Senna would have been 30 points down after Imola and the Williams if anything benefitted from the rule changes made after his death. Without those, and assuming MS did not get a 2 race ban and 2 DQs 30 points is a big ask.

I never heard of the Jordan story before. I know EJ tried to sign him for 93 playing on the Hart and Barrichello links but that predictably didn't amount to anything.

#19 PhilKerr

PhilKerr
  • Member

  • 1,572 posts
  • Joined: May 04

Posted 24 August 2006 - 09:04

Senna preferred to drive for Williams for free than team up with the wigged one and be paid, says it all

Advertisement

#20 wati

wati
  • Member

  • 1,091 posts
  • Joined: May 01

Posted 24 August 2006 - 10:08

Originally posted by PhilKerr


The 94 Williams did not suit Senna's driving style, he complained about the car being ill handling, the smoother Damon could handle the car better



Hill could handle the car better. WTF? Senna outqalified him 3 times, and Hill was 1 lap down in Brasil before the race was over.

#21 Corners

Corners
  • Member

  • 1,454 posts
  • Joined: July 04

Posted 24 August 2006 - 10:12

Originally posted by mini696
Williams have a tendancy to dump thier drivers after winning the WDC, so I assume he would have gone back to McLaren after winning for them.

That's when they think they have a better option available and the person has won the championship because his competitors haven't the same level of machinery. Senna was the best may I remind you.
I do think F1 would've been very different if Senna hadn't died, we missed out on more championships for Senna and obviously whenever there's an unnatural void created it upsets the form so therefore Schumacher probably would have won less championships.
We probably missed out on 4 years of a great battle with Senna coming out on top every time then through team changes and Michael improving and Senna getting ready to retire I think it would've moved Michaels way.
Of course if you rewind and play back life it will follow a different complete course everytime with some general traits appearing, so who knows where Coulthard would've come into play and Frentzen and F1 safety things like this stand out but everything would've been different.
Damon Hill would never have won a championship and Jacques Villeneuve would perhaps have never got to F1, and that's just a few examples. You can go on forever with a million possibilities.

The question of this thread has literally infinite answers.

#22 Hiatt

Hiatt
  • Member

  • 2,086 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 24 August 2006 - 10:16

How would F1 be had Schumi died there instead? I know it might be fun to speculate, but it is a useless wishing you had made another decision in your life ten years ago. Or yesterday.

#23 PhilKerr

PhilKerr
  • Member

  • 1,572 posts
  • Joined: May 04

Posted 24 August 2006 - 10:17

Originally posted by wati



Hill could handle the car better. WTF? Senna outqalified him 3 times, and Hill was 1 lap down in Brasil before the race was over.


Senna complained about an ill handling car, it was only his brilliance behind the wheel that compensated for it

Regulations post Senna's death definitely aided Hill's driving sstyle

#24 Levike

Levike
  • Member

  • 1,036 posts
  • Joined: May 03

Posted 24 August 2006 - 10:18

Originally posted by wati



Hill could handle the car better. WTF? Senna outqalified him 3 times, and Hill was 1 lap down in Brasil before the race was over.


Well, and Senna's pace in 1 lap was remarkable too. He did the 3rd. best time of the race with full of fuel.
I think he should have back off a bit, instead of pushing like mad. But it was his approach, as always.
Anyway we were robbed of golden years i believe. The fights between Schu and Hill/Vill/Hakk/Monty were way tooooo overrated. Schu was clearly miles away from them. At lately we have Raikkonen and Alonso but the other years there was simply no one . Hakk was great he had balls some consistency, but idon't think he would have been lasted so long against Schu if his car weren't so fast.


Levi

#25 PhilKerr

PhilKerr
  • Member

  • 1,572 posts
  • Joined: May 04

Posted 24 August 2006 - 10:19

If Senna had not died F1 would not be in half the shit it is now as the bastardisation of classic tracks and classic corners and the Tilkedromes would probably not have happened but for Senna's death

#26 Oho

Oho
  • Member

  • 7,734 posts
  • Joined: November 98

Posted 24 August 2006 - 11:00

Originally posted by PhilKerr


Overtaking on a formation lap is a trivial offence in the grand scheme of things, it does not put lives at risk or endanger safety, it is a procedural issue that should have been dealt with by a stop and go penalty or a fine not a multiple race ban, the overtaking on formation lap punishment was purely to prolong the championship


It was dealt with a stop and go. The ban that followed was for ignoring the black flag after Schumacher failed to serve the initial stop and go in the allotted time frame.

The incident that triggered the initial penalty was rather aggravated, Schumcher overtook Hill maybe half a dozen times over the two warmup laps and in pretty much each and every case it seemed like an attempt to intimidate Hill. This after Schumacher had been flatly wraned that such behavior would no longer be tolerated.

The stewards of course ****ed up, the penalty for the infringement was served too late and hence Schumcher under instructoins of Benetton team did not serve it , net result being that he was black flagged. Right or wrong the failure to obey the black flag was a biggie by any account and had they wanted they could have actually revoked Schumacher license for it.

#27 Oho

Oho
  • Member

  • 7,734 posts
  • Joined: November 98

Posted 24 August 2006 - 11:01

Originally posted by Levike


Well, and Senna's pace in 1 lap was remarkable too. He did the 3rd. best time of the race with full of fuel.
I think he should have back off a bit, instead of pushing like mad. But it was his approach, as always.
Anyway we were robbed of golden years i believe. The fights between Schu and Hill/Vill/Hakk/Monty were way tooooo overrated. Schu was clearly miles away from them. At lately we have Raikkonen and Alonso but the other years there was simply no one . Hakk was great he had balls some consistency, but idon't think he would have been lasted so long against Schu if his car weren't so fast.


Levi


Now there is some circular logic for you.....

#28 Arrow

Arrow
  • Member

  • 9,190 posts
  • Joined: September 01

Posted 24 August 2006 - 11:02

Originally posted by PhilKerr

The 94 Williams did not suit Senna's driving style, he complained about the car being ill handling, the smoother Damon could handle the car better

Thats why Senna lapped in at half distance at Brazil? :lol:

Originally posted by PhilKerr

Had Senna survived he would have lost the 94 title to Schumi with no Schumi 2 race ban, 95 would have been close but Schumi would have won again, Hill made mistakes that year but not enough to explain that points gap to Schumi, the Benetton was simply a better car


You must have forgotton Hill mistakes in 95. From memory he crashed out at Germany, Silverstone, Nurburg, Monza, Suzuka, got a drive through at Spa. Thats a massive number of points, plus we are not even factoring Sennas general performance advantage.
Senna would have dominated 95 and 96. But Michael would not have gone to Ferrari in 96 anyway if Senna was around.

#29 Stephan

Stephan
  • Member

  • 1,142 posts
  • Joined: July 04

Posted 24 August 2006 - 11:03

Originally posted by Mox


JVi would beat Senna in '97 in equal cars.


This has to be the joke of the century :rolleyes:

#30 Arrow

Arrow
  • Member

  • 9,190 posts
  • Joined: September 01

Posted 24 August 2006 - 11:06

Originally posted by PhilKerr


Senna complained about an ill handling car, it was only his brilliance behind the wheel that compensated for it

Regulations post Senna's death definitely aided Hill's driving sstyle

Hill complained about the handling of the car as well, thats why he was lapped by Senna at Brazil. After Senna's death the williams became a better car, nothing to do with 'suiting' Hills style.

#31 dde

dde
  • Member

  • 800 posts
  • Joined: January 05

Posted 24 August 2006 - 11:10

Originally posted by Arrow

Thats why Senna lapped in at half distance at Brazil? :lol:


Just a bad WE for Hill, lapped, 1.2s behind in qual and 1.5s behind in the best lap in race.

Things were much different at Aida and Suzuka. Hill was much closer in qual (0.6s and 0.8s) and much closer in term of race pace in the race (compared to Schumacher since Senna was not there, but we can guess MS and AS would have been close like in Brazil).

#32 Peter

Peter
  • Member

  • 1,392 posts
  • Joined: March 99

Posted 24 August 2006 - 11:14

I believed before Senna killed himself that he was already on the downward slide.

If he had survived, I think we would have seen him equalling MS for alleged dirty tactics. One reasons I had stopped liking Senna was his attitude to other drivers and willingness to drive them off the road.

Odly, I believe that MS might have been treated more fairly if he has been up against Senna for a few years.

#33 Corners

Corners
  • Member

  • 1,454 posts
  • Joined: July 04

Posted 24 August 2006 - 11:17

Originally posted by dde


Just a bad WE for Hill, lapped, 1.2s behind in qual and 1.5s behind in the best lap in race.

Things were much different at Aida and Suzuka. Hill was much closer in qual (0.6s and 0.8s) and much closer in term of race pace in the race (compared to Schumacher since Senna was not there, but we can guess MS and AS would have been close like in Brazil).

Close in qualifying ? 0.6 and 0.8 in a team Hill had driven in for a year and tested in before that and Senna was equally unfamiliar with. Senna was totally blitzing Hill driving better than ever, only the next season from what people regard as one of the greatest seasons ever driven in the mdoern era '93

#34 PhilKerr

PhilKerr
  • Member

  • 1,572 posts
  • Joined: May 04

Posted 24 August 2006 - 11:26

Originally posted by Peter
I believed before Senna killed himself that he was already on the downward slide.

If he had survived, I think we would have seen him equalling MS for alleged dirty tactics. One reasons I had stopped liking Senna was his attitude to other drivers and willingness to drive them off the road.

Odly, I believe that MS might have been treated more fairly if he has been up against Senna for a few years.


Much as I loathed Senna I don't think he was on a downward slide, given the equipment at his disposal I think 93 was the best driving of his career and you don't get past it in a few months unless you eat a lot of pies and get out of shape and Senna was not that

#35 dde

dde
  • Member

  • 800 posts
  • Joined: January 05

Posted 24 August 2006 - 11:39

Originally posted by Corners
Close in qualifying ? 0.6 and 0.8 in a team Hill had driven in for a year and tested in before that and Senna was equally unfamiliar with. Senna was totally blitzing Hill driving better than ever, only the next season from what people regard as one of the greatest seasons ever driven in the mdoern era '93


I said "closer". Brazil is just unsignificant, given Hill just fuckep up badly.

And the 93 season of Senna is wayyyy overrated.

#36 Oho

Oho
  • Member

  • 7,734 posts
  • Joined: November 98

Posted 24 August 2006 - 11:39

Originally posted by PhilKerr


Much as I loathed Senna I don't think he was on a downward slide, given the equipment at his disposal I think 93 was the best driving of his career and you don't get past it in a few months unless you eat a lot of pies and get out of shape and Senna was not that


Well Häkkinen sort of did, not that he lost ability but he did lose desire.

#37 skonks

skonks
  • Member

  • 925 posts
  • Joined: April 06

Posted 24 August 2006 - 11:41

Originally posted by Mox
JVi would beat Senna in '97 in equal cars.


:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

#38 Cheap Wine Alesi

Cheap Wine Alesi
  • Member

  • 2,723 posts
  • Joined: December 04

Posted 24 August 2006 - 11:43

Originally posted by dde

And the 93 season of Senna is wayyyy overrated.


And even then it was the best season from a driver if we count years 1993-2006 only.

#39 valachus

valachus
  • Member

  • 1,074 posts
  • Joined: July 05

Posted 24 August 2006 - 11:46

Originally posted by PhilKerr
If Senna had not died F1 would not be in half the shit it is now as the bastardisation of classic tracks and classic corners and the Tilkedromes would probably not have happened but for Senna's death

Best post of the thread. Very true... However some taming would have happened anyway, '94 had already seen some horrific accidents - Brundle in Brasil, Alesi hurt in testing, then the crash-gore-fest in Imola (Barrichello, Ratzenberger, Lehto and Lamy at the start, Senna, Alboreto in the pits), something had to be done but not to the extreme safety fixation that marked track designs and alterations ever since.

Advertisement

#40 mikedeering

mikedeering
  • Member

  • 3,521 posts
  • Joined: July 00

Posted 24 August 2006 - 12:03

Originally posted by Cheap Wine Alesi


And even then it was the best season from a driver if we count years 1993-2006 only.


I don't know, at times Senna was outstanding that year, but he also went awol for a few races mid season where the car wasn't competitive and he just couldn't be bothered. Monza being the lowpoint of this. It was only Hakkinen's promotion in Portugal that woke him up from this slumber.

#41 Levike

Levike
  • Member

  • 1,036 posts
  • Joined: May 03

Posted 24 August 2006 - 12:11

Originally posted by mikedeering


I don't know, at times Senna was outstanding that year, but he also went awol for a few races mid season where the car wasn't competitive and he just couldn't be bothered. Monza being the lowpoint of this. It was only Hakkinen's promotion in Portugal that woke him up from this slumber.


Maybe....but i saw too often, that he was outstanding at the first laps, and when the others were woking and the car differences became evident, he was not able to keep up with them.
He was driving good scoring positions when the car failed, or it was around halftime that year, when the Mclaren became suddenly faster, i think it was when they was able to use some better engines, he was beginning to attack, he was great at Canada, then Hungary, but the car simply failed. At monza he crashed with Hill, and then he lost it into Brundle....I think becase the car suffered from the first contact.
At least he desperately adjuted something in the cockpit right before the crash.
I think it was not Hakkinen who woke him up, but the car. Speed and Reliability came to Mclaren. If he could have that car from the beginning, I'm not sure that Prost could have won that year.

#42 Corners

Corners
  • Member

  • 1,454 posts
  • Joined: July 04

Posted 24 August 2006 - 12:14

Originally posted by dde


I said "closer". Brazil is just unsignificant, given Hill just fuckep up badly.

And the 93 season of Senna is wayyyy overrated.

How can you overrate any driver that drives way above the level of the car Schumacher included ? There is only one reason and it is having a dislike for someone regardless. Senna made my British driving hero's look like idiots the only person who could hold a candle to him was Schumacher and Prost of the modern era right up until 2006. The fact is Senna would've trounced Hill and probably struggled but still beaten Schumacher in 94 and thereafer for the next few years.

#43 HP

HP
  • Member

  • 14,346 posts
  • Joined: October 99

Posted 24 August 2006 - 12:45

Originally posted by PhilKerr
Senna preferred to drive for Williams for free than team up with the wigged one and be paid, says it all

According to an interview with Ron Dennis (IIRC, done around the 10th anniversary of Imola 94), he and Ayrton were already talking about Senna returning to McLaren, after his contract with Williams expired. Ayrton left for Williams because McLaren had not a competetive engine for some time. But looking how Williams had the car in 96 and 97 (and seeing the improvmement in 94, and 95) he might have stayed on til 97. And I think he would have won 95, 96 and 97 the least. And DC might never have made it into F1. JV might not have been hired by Williams, and thus saved us of the nightmare of JVi at BAR. Tough call if Ferrari would have been able to hire Senna. Altough there were talks, Senna and driving for Ferrari, when the team was in a disarray and just trying to find their way back to the top? IMO highly unlikely. And had Senna been hired by Ferrari, it's questionable that Ferrari would have had their success. of recent years Brawn and Byrne probably would not have joined Ferrari when they did.

As to F1, well I don't think it would have been much different than it is now. All the changes would have come later. Senna's death accelerated things. But it can be argued that the important safety changes came way too late for Senna and Ratzenberger. So IMO the real issue was that the F1 community was lulled in a false security. IMO, the best thing that came out since then is that the F1 has been mostly on top of safety issues. While I am all for entertaining, exiting races, it should not be at the prize of dead drivers, marshalls, spectactors, etc.

#44 as65p

as65p
  • Member

  • 17,695 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 24 August 2006 - 12:50

Originally posted by dde

And the 93 season of Senna is wayyyy overrated.


I'm doubtful if this well help you, but I can absolutely assure you that it is possible to dislike a driver from the bottom of your heart but still at the same time acknowledge his driving skills. Believe me, I'm practizing this with Schumacher for a good few years now.

#45 dde

dde
  • Member

  • 800 posts
  • Joined: January 05

Posted 24 August 2006 - 13:45

Originally posted by as65p


I'm doubtful if this well help you, but I can absolutely assure you that it is possible to dislike a driver from the bottom of your heart but still at the same time acknowledge his driving skills. Believe me, I'm practizing this with Schumacher for a good few years now.


I didn't say it was bad. I say it is overrated. Don't forget Senna had sa real shitty teamate for 13 races. When Hakkinen came, Senna was shaked and had to wake up. 93 is not his best season.

#46 dde

dde
  • Member

  • 800 posts
  • Joined: January 05

Posted 24 August 2006 - 13:48

Originally posted by Corners
[B] How can you overrate any driver that drives way above the level of the car Schumacher included ?

Given that the McLaren was globally faster than the Benetton and that Schumacher was as fast as Senna, so that they were even in qual and even in the championship at 2 GPs of the end of the season, I don't see how you can be sure Senna drove above Schumacher's level.

#47 Corners

Corners
  • Member

  • 1,454 posts
  • Joined: July 04

Posted 24 August 2006 - 13:50

Originally posted by dde


I didn't say it was bad. I say it is overrated. Don't forget Senna had sa real shitty teamate for 13 races. When Hakkinen came, Senna was shaked and had to wake up. 93 is not his best season.

You don't know what you're talking about sorry, Hakkinen had everything to prove against the master and even so he was also totally overshadowed but Senna. I would leave it now because you're digging a deeper hole.
And the irony is 93 was as much his season as any other it was Prost who didn't have his best season amd Schumacher in fact everyone BUT Senna had an average season.

#48 Mox

Mox
  • Member

  • 3,195 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 24 August 2006 - 13:52

Originally posted by Stephan


This has to be the joke of the century :rolleyes:


Great, then hopefully all will agree that JVi wasn't all he was dolled up to be by many forum posters. :lol:

#49 SeanValen

SeanValen
  • Member

  • 16,933 posts
  • Joined: February 01

Posted 24 August 2006 - 13:57

Originally posted by lustigson
I think the 1994 title fight between Senna and Schumacher would have been great to watch.



:up: That's all that matters.


If Senna was still with us, we would of had some monumental battles between him and Schumi that probabley would of been the icing on the cake just before the FIA rules turned f1 backwards.

Although I would hope that Roland Ratzenberg's death would of still been the kickstart to the safety era of f1, it's tragic someone had to die to kickstart the safety era, it's weird talknig about the what ifs. I wish no one had died, but that was what it took for f1 to change I'm afraid.


I do realise this thread will become a nasty bashing thread perhaps.


But I admire Senna and Schumacher and won't get into these pointless fights, we missed a good opportunity of golden battles Respect to them both.

:up:

There are so many things I would like to hear from Senna about the current f1 rules, I'm sure he would break the silence and say people, safety is one thing, but you went too far in the wrong areas. He was a passionate chap about f1, whatever else f1 has become, at least we haven't had any other driver fatalities. Were talking about totally different f1 eras now.

As Schumi said in Imola 2004 on the 10th anniversary of his death: "He was a fantastic personality and great competitor."
You still want to see him out there competing. Every now and again we check back in with Senna, as he was something special, not just as a driver but the way he carried himself in the sport, his press conferences were like films, on fire. My trip to Imola this year, despite being 12 years since his death was exactly as I thought it would be, you don't go to Imola without thinking about his impact on the sport, very powerful, his statue on a bright and warm spring qualifying day, the day Michael took pole on the same day Senna took his last pole, it was errie to see that live, Senna still makes a impact despite not having turned a wheel on that fateful day, Senna still makes his presence felt there. RIP It was good to visit Imola finally and put the rest my feelings of the track and the place and the history, it was quite soul cleansing, if you liked Senna.

:smoking:

#50 dde

dde
  • Member

  • 800 posts
  • Joined: January 05

Posted 24 August 2006 - 14:01

Originally posted by Corners
You don't know what you're talking about sorry, Hakkinen had everything to prove against the master and even so he was also totally overshadowed but Senna. I would leave it now because you're digging a deeper hole.


I know exactly what I'm talking about. No matter what Hakkinen's motive were. The fact is that he was as fast as Senna in qual, and by outperforming Schumacher simply showed the McLaren was faster than the Benetton, and that Senna had felt partly asleep during the summer.


And the irony is 93 was as much his season as any other it was Prost who didn't have his best season amd Schumacher in fact everyone BUT Senna had an average season. [/B]


Yeah, yeah...YOU don't just know what you are talking about. But i'm not the one just looking at the number of victories to say Senna was just great while the others stink. I look the way he has won his races ( including Donington 93 where I happen not to consider only the first lap ) I look what he has done at others races, given the equipment he had, compared to the others, and what he has done in qualifications. Senna had made a few very good races, a few average, and a few bad. Like Prost and Schumacher.