Jump to content


Photo

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


  • Please log in to reply
161 replies to this topic

#51 Big Block 8

Big Block 8
  • Member

  • 2,423 posts
  • Joined: January 04

Posted 24 August 2006 - 14:10

Originally posted by Corners
Hakkinen had everything to prove against the master and even so he was also totally overshadowed but Senna.


But it was far from "overshadowing". The quals were pretty close, even at that time. Also Senna's advantage in races was well inside the margin, that a 3 x WDC racing for sixth consecutive year in the team, should have against a test driver in his first races in the team. Senna was better in the races at the time, as he should, but it would have been tighter in the future.

Advertisement

#52 Stian1979

Stian1979
  • Member

  • 420 posts
  • Joined: February 06

Posted 24 August 2006 - 14:13

Senna would stay with williams and win the title in 94 and 95.

He was a bether driver then Hill and the Williams was the car to beat.

He would have moved to Ferarri in 96 and Hill would have won the title and in 97 I have no idea if JV or Senna would have won.

I belive he would retire after geting one title with Ferrari witch would come in 1997,1999 or 2000

#53 as65p

as65p
  • Member

  • 17,283 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 24 August 2006 - 14:36

Originally posted by dde
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.


:lol: Nice Fanboy logic: nobody can be faster than my hero and if somebody is in front of him it has to be the car.


I look the way he has won his races ( including Donington 93 where I happen not to consider only the first lap )



And by carefully considering the full Donington race you decided that Senna didn't do anything special after the 1st lap, right?

You just proved the doubts I spoke of in my first post right: obviously you just can't comprehend that anybody did anything better than MS at any point in time.
No use to discuss anything with you, really.

#54 John B

John B
  • Member

  • 6,298 posts
  • Joined: June 99

Posted 24 August 2006 - 15:46

I've seen the Dennis quote about Senna returning to McLaren also in the Pirhana Club book. Presumably, it would have been a McLaren-Renault, as there's little reason to see why AS would have bothered with McLaren as they turned out 1994-1997 (they were competitive in '97, but he wouldn't have signed for that year based on their 1996 performance).

The rules question is more intriguing. How many of them would have been delayed or never happened had he lived to stage several classic duels with Schumacher?

#55 Dino G

Dino G
  • Member

  • 523 posts
  • Joined: November 99

Posted 24 August 2006 - 15:51

Intriguing to think of the possibilities that we were robbed with Senna's death.

His death probably saved lives.

If Senna survived I think he would have died at somepoint anyways. Either by dirty racing, which would have been poetic justice, ir by simply losing his nerve. I think that he lost his nerve that Sunday morning, shaken by Barrichello's frightening accident, then Ratzenberger's death and the colossal accident on the first lap.

Senna and his vain complex of himself, his "God-Like" opinion of himself, he suddenly felt mortal and chances are , if he survived, he would have retired after 1994, not wanting to risk his life anymore.

Now if he ever did regain his bearings and raced like Senna pre-1994, it would have been a colossal battle between him, Schumacher and Villeneuve and Hakkinen. It would have been amazing stuff for maybe a year or two. I would still give the nod to Schumacher, though, who trounced Senna on his own turf in Brazil. That was the beginning of the end of Senna.

As much as I hated Senna, his death probably saved many with further advancements in safety. That disgusting racer was a complete arsehole in and out of the car, BUT blessed with fantastic car control and speed.

#56 Arrow

Arrow
  • Member

  • 9,190 posts
  • Joined: September 01

Posted 24 August 2006 - 15:52

Senna was flattered in 93 but the crazy amount of wet races. Apart from Australia he didnt do much in the dry that year.

#57 giacomo

giacomo
  • Member

  • 6,977 posts
  • Joined: December 05

Posted 24 August 2006 - 16:05

Originally posted by Barri
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!

I think if Senna had survived his Imola shunt, today he would be Brazilian president instead of Lula da Silva.

No, wait... not good enough.

I think he would be pope instead of Benedict.

#58 SirSaltire

SirSaltire
  • Member

  • 781 posts
  • Joined: June 05

Posted 24 August 2006 - 16:18

If Senna had survived would DC have got his break from tester to full drive? Like most others I would have loved to have seen more battles between Senna and MS :up:

#59 AndreasF1

AndreasF1
  • Member

  • 1,198 posts
  • Joined: February 02

Posted 24 August 2006 - 18:26

Yes dde, Senna had an average 1993 season. I expected much better from him than the 5 wins in an average McLaren. :rolleyes:

Advertisement

#60 Levike

Levike
  • Member

  • 1,036 posts
  • Joined: May 03

Posted 24 August 2006 - 21:19

Originally posted by Arrow
Senna was flattered in 93 but the crazy amount of wet races. Apart from Australia he didnt do much in the dry that year.


Yes so Ayrton won surely in the wet, just because he was so 'averagely' good at it huh ?
:stoned:

#61 Levike

Levike
  • Member

  • 1,036 posts
  • Joined: May 03

Posted 24 August 2006 - 21:20

Originally posted by Dino G
Intriguing to think of the possibilities that we were robbed with Senna's death.

His death probably saved lives.

If Senna survived I think he would have died at somepoint anyways. Either by dirty racing, which would have been poetic justice, ir by simply losing his nerve. I think that he lost his nerve that Sunday morning, shaken by Barrichello's frightening accident, then Ratzenberger's death and the colossal accident on the first lap.

Senna and his vain complex of himself, his "God-Like" opinion of himself, he suddenly felt mortal and chances are , if he survived, he would have retired after 1994, not wanting to risk his life anymore.

Now if he ever did regain his bearings and raced like Senna pre-1994, it would have been a colossal battle between him, Schumacher and Villeneuve and Hakkinen. It would have been amazing stuff for maybe a year or two. I would still give the nod to Schumacher, though, who trounced Senna on his own turf in Brazil. That was the beginning of the end of Senna.

As much as I hated Senna, his death probably saved many with further advancements in safety. That disgusting racer was a complete arsehole in and out of the car, BUT blessed with fantastic car control and speed.


are you really so dumb, or just pretend ?

#62 Arrow

Arrow
  • Member

  • 9,190 posts
  • Joined: September 01

Posted 24 August 2006 - 22:00

Originally posted by Levike


Yes so Ayrton won surely in the wet, just because he was so 'averagely' good at it huh ?
:stoned:



Well it was only one type of condition that he actually did great things that year. We already knew he was great in those conditions.

#63 Kenaltgr

Kenaltgr
  • Member

  • 892 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 24 August 2006 - 22:07

Originally posted by Levike


are you really so dumb, or just pretend ?


He's an archetypal MS-Lover like DDE(aka Speed A). They spend every post bashing Senna to make Schumacher look better than he was in reality.

#64 SlateGray

SlateGray
  • Member

  • 6,122 posts
  • Joined: August 00

Posted 24 August 2006 - 22:33

Originally posted by Mox
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.

Now I am a big Jacques fan, but don't think he would beat Senna over a whole season in equal cars with full reliability all round. But what a team they would have made!

What if Bertrand Gachot had not ....?

#65 boostpressure

boostpressure
  • Member

  • 1,643 posts
  • Joined: November 05

Posted 25 August 2006 - 01:50

Originally posted by Corners
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.


that's stretching it a bit too far. Your basically saying there that Williams were the only team who wanted Jacques for 1996, which is plainly wrong.

Ayrton would have stayed at Williams till the end of 1997 and cleaned up. Then he would have moved back to McLaren right as they were about to come good again, 1998. In other words, Hill, Villeneuve and Hakkinen would never have won World titles. Not in that period anyway.

#66 Levike

Levike
  • Member

  • 1,036 posts
  • Joined: May 03

Posted 25 August 2006 - 05:54

Originally posted by Arrow



Well it was only one type of condition that he actually did great things that year. We already knew he was great in those conditions.


Okay, but that's not fair...
He won 3 wet races that year, and people tend to say that's normal because he was good at it.
No it's not normal, those were exceptional strong performances. And it's not normal that one driver is giving a lesson to the others how to drive when raining and the cars are trickier to drive than ever.
It's not that he won all, because it was not the case, he made mistakes too...bot on the majority of the wet races, he was in his own class, and that's not normal. It was exceptional.

#67 Schuperman

Schuperman
  • Member

  • 1,745 posts
  • Joined: September 03

Posted 25 August 2006 - 07:19

Originally posted by boostpressure
Ayrton would have stayed at Williams till the end of 1997 and cleaned up. Then he would have moved back to McLaren right as they were about to come good again, 1998. In other words, Hill, Villeneuve and Hakkinen would never have won World titles. Not in that period anyway.


Most likely scenario:

Williams: 1994 - Probably WDC. (Assumption: IF DH could do it, Senna could have done it better)
Williams: 1995 - 1997 - WDC
McLaren: 1998 - 1999 - WDC

As claimed by some here, Senna had always wanted to drive for Ferrari.
Ferrari: 2000 - 2004 - WDC.

As claimed by some here, Senna would get bored with total domination. Thus, he could have switched to Renault.
Renault: 2005 - WDC.
Renault: 2006 - Is about to win another WDC.

No one else could have won the WDC IF Senna had survived.

#68 Levike

Levike
  • Member

  • 1,036 posts
  • Joined: May 03

Posted 25 August 2006 - 07:23

Originally posted by Schuperman


Most likely scenario:

Williams: 1994 - Probably WDC. (Assumption: IF DH could do it, Senna could have done it better)
Williams: 1995 - 1997 - WDC
McLaren: 1998 - 1999 - WDC

As claimed by some here, Senna had always wanted to drive for Ferrari.
Ferrari: 2000 - 2004 - WDC.

As claimed by some here, Senna would get bored with total domination. Thus, he could have switched to Renault.
Renault: 2005 - WDC.
Renault: 2006 - Is about to win another WDC.

No one else could have won the WDC IF Senna had survived.


My dreams came true ! At last you wrote a carefully analysed and with frightening logic assembled post on this board ! Congratulations !



Levi

#69 Obi Offiah

Obi Offiah
  • Member

  • 8,534 posts
  • Joined: November 04

Posted 25 August 2006 - 07:33

Originally posted by dde


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.


Hi dde

Certainly by the end of the year, Portugal, Suzuka & Adelaide, the Mclaren was faster than the Benetton. To be fair there were races where the Benetton was the quicker car, to name a few, Silverstone, Monaco, Hungary perhaps?

Obi

#70 Dudley

Dudley
  • Member

  • 9,245 posts
  • Joined: March 00

Posted 25 August 2006 - 07:48

Senna would have 50 mouthbreather posters following him around calling him a cheater.

And suzuka 1991 would be Jerez 1997.

#71 as65p

as65p
  • Member

  • 17,283 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 25 August 2006 - 08:10

Originally posted by Dudley
Senna would have 50 mouthbreather posters following him around calling him a cheater.

And suzuka 1991 would be Jerez 1997.


Get your facts straight at least. Or are you suggesting Senna caused Mansell to spin behind him in Suzuka '91?

#72 KABA

KABA
  • Member

  • 298 posts
  • Joined: July 06

Posted 25 August 2006 - 08:15

While I would tend to agree with some individual statements made and disagree with others, it is almost impossible to predict because the whole dynamic changes.

Only thing I'm sure of is that we would have seen some great racing.

Further, IMO the racing between Ayrton and Michael would have been extremely clean. Maybe hard to understand for some, but mutual respect between specific people does have a influence on the number of racing incidents. Human nature in any competitive behaviour, especially among the elite in any specific field.

#73 as65p

as65p
  • Member

  • 17,283 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 25 August 2006 - 08:38

Originally posted by KABA
While I would tend to agree with some individual statements made and disagree with others, it is almost impossible to predict because the whole dynamic changes.

Only thing I'm sure of is that we would have seen some great racing.

Further, IMO the racing between Ayrton and Michael would have been extremely clean. Maybe hard to understand for some, but mutual respect between specific people does have a influence on the number of racing incidents. Human nature in any competitive behaviour, especially among the elite in any specific field.


Quite possible. Few realize that, apart form the early years where most great drivers (even the rightly as very clean considered Hakkinen) did some silly things, almost all questionable incidents involving Senna where with Prost and only with Prost. For example I have only good memories of exciting and close battles with Alesi. Even with his early nemesis Piquet I can't recall anything dirty. With Mansell it's a bit mixed, but nothing in the line of Suzuka '89/'90 there either. Only the Senna/Prost battle was so intense that it brought out the best and the worst in both men.

Come to think of it, I really have no idea how it would develope with MS, could have gone either way, really.

#74 PhilKerr

PhilKerr
  • Member

  • 1,572 posts
  • Joined: May 04

Posted 25 August 2006 - 08:55

Originally posted by Levike


are you really so dumb, or just pretend ?


I think he has some sort of point although could have expressed it better, Senna was badly shaken up by the events of Barrichello and then Ratzenberger, he had never experienced death in racing before and even the night before the race Sid Watkins was telling him to pack it in and not race as he was concerned by Senna's state of mind, couple of races after Imola we nearly lost Wendlinger so that would have further put doubts in Senna's mind and the Wendlinger crash coming after Imola and Senna being badly shaken by RR dying might just have convinced Senna enough was enough

#75 Levike

Levike
  • Member

  • 1,036 posts
  • Joined: May 03

Posted 25 August 2006 - 09:13

Originally posted by PhilKerr


I think he has some sort of point although could have expressed it better, Senna was badly shaken up by the events of Barrichello and then Ratzenberger, he had never experienced death in racing before and even the night before the race Sid Watkins was telling him to pack it in and not race as he was concerned by Senna's state of mind, couple of races after Imola we nearly lost Wendlinger so that would have further put doubts in Senna's mind and the Wendlinger crash coming after Imola and Senna being badly shaken by RR dying might just have convinced Senna enough was enough


Yes he has but he wrote in a very cynical manner.
And the one what made me mad is :

I would still give the nod to Schumacher, though, who trounced Senna on his own turf in Brazil. That was the beginning of the end of Senna.

I was a little drunk yesterday night, because i was partying, so i apologize if i was harsh.

Anyway, for me it wasn't seemef that Senna was trounced. He had bad luck, and then catastrophicla luck, but he seemed as fast as ever, as motivated as ever, and this was directly contributed to his death. He could have been go for a safe second in Brasil and a safe second in imola, but he wasn't that kind. He was always going for it, that's why he was my hero. So the 'end of an era' argument is not fair, and simply not true.

#76 Henri Greuter

Henri Greuter
  • Member

  • 4,802 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 25 August 2006 - 09:18

Originally posted by KABA
While I would tend to agree with some individual statements made and disagree with others, it is almost impossible to predict because the whole dynamic changes.

Only thing I'm sure of is that we would have seen some great racing.

Further, IMO the racing between Ayrton and Michael would have been extremely clean. Maybe hard to understand for some, but mutual respect between specific people does have a influence on the number of racing incidents. Human nature in any competitive behaviour, especially among the elite in any specific field.



I am affraid I don't share your opinions about a clean fight.
With respect to both drivers, Senna and MS shown themselves to be the most egocentric, selfish and selfobsessed drivers ever within F1 and willing to step beyond the limits in order to avoid defeat to the title. Senna had shown it already, MS was to show it later on.
A few incidents between them in '92 and '93 may give an indication too.
Respect for others was there with both men as long as the to be respected person didn't come in the way of the world title primarily, and race wins secondarily.
Senna's object had always been to beat the most competive men that could challenge him for the title. up until '87 he didn't have quite the cars to do it, once he had them: the most serious opponents to him had to be more than careful, as particularly Prost and Mansell were to find out once it really mattered.
About the same can be said for MS.


Somehow I have the fear that to make up that large gap would have caused for some desperate actions by Senna first, if MS was willing to cope with that and protect the points lead instead of permitting himself to go head on with Senna, I don't know.
Once the gap was closed, I am affraid that we would have got a real dirty battle between two drivers who were not willing to give in to anybody with a title at stake. Which could well have lead to a situation that made the Prost-Senna feud a kindergarten affair.
I am sorry but given Senna's Legacy, and what we eventually were to see from MS (even in 1994 alread) doesn't give me much hope that this could have been clean.
Maybe exciting to watch if you were into all that like some obviously are.


The future?

Well, assuming that none of the two egoists had been banned for a while because of utter msibehaving on the track and/or accidents having caused either major injuries or fatalities.
(Sorry to the fans of both men but I think both drivers were suspect for being involved in such eventually due to their stubborness to refuse defeat to the other)

AS wouldn't have blundered like Coulthard and Hill in '95 and I think that title in all likelyhood would have been Senna's, maybe after yet another dirty battle.

Beyond that, I've understood that Senna was supposed to be at Ferrari from '96 on and from here on I won't speculate any longer because JVi's ending up with Williams was partly possible because of Senna's demise. I don't know where MS, JVi, AS, and Damon all had ended up had May 1 1994 been gone different.



Henri

#77 Levike

Levike
  • Member

  • 1,036 posts
  • Joined: May 03

Posted 25 August 2006 - 09:34

Anyway, we will never see, never figure out..
One thing is sure, nobody could deny : There should have been great races and fights never seen before. At least neither AS or MS was knocking out somebody at every race.

And, just my opinion, dirty tricks are on the tracks every day, in every series. It just the nature of things, that the top drivers are more in the spot. The midfielders are at least as dirty, or put it straight, given that they are nowhere near as good as the best, they made not just more dirty things but much much more colossal mistakes which are ending with accidents.
But if Senna made a very dangerous and stupid vengeance (although this kind of accidents happens on a day to day basis everywhere in the world in every series) on Prost in 90, we of course talking about it for huh 16 years.

My personal opinion, that Senna wanted always be clean, he wanted to be the champ flat and square.
This was needed by his ego. He didn't want to be just a WC. He wanted to be the Best. So cheating was closed out. That was not his nature.
Given his talent, temperament, ego, proudness he did mistakes, but that's all.

#78 Oho

Oho
  • Member

  • 7,589 posts
  • Joined: November 98

Posted 25 August 2006 - 10:45

Originally posted by KABA


Further, IMO the racing between Ayrton and Michael would have been extremely clean. Maybe hard to understand for some, but mutual respect between specific people does have a influence on the number of racing incidents.


So the conclusion is there really was little if any mutual respect between Häkkinen and Schumacher despite claims to the contrary, not that there were may incidents but that certainly was not for lack of trying on Schumcahers part...

#79 Henri Greuter

Henri Greuter
  • Member

  • 4,802 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 25 August 2006 - 11:19

Originally posted by Levike
Anyway, we will never see, never figure out..
One thing is sure, nobody could deny : There should have been great races and fights never seen before. At least neither AS or MS was knocking out somebody at every race.

And, just my opinion, dirty tricks are on the tracks every day, in every series. It just the nature of things, that the top drivers are more in the spot. The midfielders are at least as dirty, or put it straight, given that they are nowhere near as good as the best, they made not just more dirty things but much much more colossal mistakes which are ending with accidents.
But if Senna made a very dangerous and stupid vengeance (although this kind of accidents happens on a day to day basis everywhere in the world in every series) on Prost in 90, we of course talking about it for huh 16 years.

My personal opinion, that Senna wanted always be clean, he wanted to be the champ flat and square.
This was needed by his ego. He didn't want to be just a WC. He wanted to be the Best. So cheating was closed out. That was not his nature.
Given his talent, temperament, ego, proudness he did mistakes, but that's all.



With all respect Levike but this is too positive on Senna.
It depends on what you consider cheating.
If cheating stands for bending and/or bvreaking the rules, then Senna did cheat because he bend/broke a number of rules. He was among the pioneers of ruthless driving, introducing intimidation and willingness to risk a crash on the track. His sportsmanship left a lot to be desired if his skills were not enough despite the tremendous skills he unquestionably had.

He wanted to be the best, in certain aspects of racing he was the best. In both positive, applaudable aspects but also in negative, lamentable manners.

And you are right, there are dirty tricks beng played on the tracks nowadays.
But, as a number of other drivers can tell you and has been reported in a number of publications worldwide: Senna has been a big inspiration in those kind of tricks becoming the norm within his career and at every level he raced. He moved the goalposts in commitment and behaviour like few had ever done before him. In positive manners but also in negative manners.
Maybe he wanted to be clean but bieing the best was of more importance. And given the choise: it was dirty over defeat.

Sad. because he had such great capacities that he didn't need to tarnish his career with some of those misdoings to begin with.

Once again, that I put this down I hope that you will realize that this isn't personal against you.


Henri

Advertisement

#80 Levike

Levike
  • Member

  • 1,036 posts
  • Joined: May 03

Posted 25 August 2006 - 11:50

Henri i always respect what you say, and never take it as a personal insult to me.
Yes i'm a little biased, i was a kid when Senna grew and maybe i got more from his positive side, than his dark. I think there are many drivers too who got inspiration from him, and don't playing dirty on the track. I have a gokart too and i was never dirty, although i'm used to be angry when somebody tries to kill me on the track. :)
And maybe i'm wrong but i remember more clean Senna fights side by side than f.cked up ones.

#81 Henri Greuter

Henri Greuter
  • Member

  • 4,802 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 25 August 2006 - 12:21

Originally posted by Levike
Henri i always respect what you say, and never take it as a personal insult to me.
Yes i'm a little biased, i was a kid when Senna grew and maybe i got more from his positive side, than his dark. I think there are many drivers too who got inspiration from him, and don't playing dirty on the track. I have a gokart too and i was never dirty, although i'm used to be angry when somebody tries to kill me on the track. :)
And maybe i'm wrong but i remember more clean Senna fights side by side than f.cked up ones.


OK Levike.
And if I'm biased on the driver, its not because of the man but because some of the deeds.
Just like I have a tremendous respect for the man Ayrton Senna who tried to get all this charity projects of the ground for the chanceless kids in his country.

As for the clean fights you could well be right, I don't know out of the top of my head either.
It just seems that went it went wrong it went really, really, memorable wrong according my, obviously lower limits of what's acceptable yes and no. At least at that time that is.

Regards,
Henri

#82 coyoteBR

coyoteBR
  • Member

  • 4,085 posts
  • Joined: January 99

Posted 25 August 2006 - 14:13

We'll never know how AS Maracanã-sized ego would cope with another driver being faster than him, stealing his spotlight. Don't forget he was a man who, faced with a complainment by FIA, answered "But I am Senna!"

Although he said on n interview he would like to race to year 2000, staying behind Schumacher would probably force him to an earlier retirement, most likely with 4 ou 5 titles.

#83 Spunout

Spunout
  • Member

  • 12,351 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 25 August 2006 - 14:18

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



If somebody repeated Senna´s 93 performance today, people would actually remember the bad races and mistakes too.

"Some great performances but not as good as Senna was" would be the verdict. That´s nostalgy goggles for you ;)

#84 as65p

as65p
  • Member

  • 17,283 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 25 August 2006 - 14:20

Originally posted by coyoteBR
We'll never know how AS Maracanã-sized ego would cope with another driver being faster than him, stealing his spotlight.


That's right, even if he had survived Imola he would have been to old anyway to compete against Alonso or Raikönnen.

#85 Cenotaph

Cenotaph
  • Member

  • 2,317 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 26 August 2006 - 05:25

if Senna had survived than Hill and Villeneuve would probably never be champions, i dont think it would affect Schumacher's career with Benetton that much, and he would probably be too out of form to affect both Hakkinen and Schumacher's achievements later on.

#86 giacomo

giacomo
  • Member

  • 6,977 posts
  • Joined: December 05

Posted 26 August 2006 - 09:33

Originally posted by as65p
That's right, even if he had survived Imola he would have been to old anyway to compete against Alonso or Raikönnen.

Accept it or not: He even was too old to compete against Schumacher 1996 (at least) onwards.

Their age difference was 9 years! 1994 Schumacher already had the upper hand. Maybe even in 1992/93.

#87 as65p

as65p
  • Member

  • 17,283 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 26 August 2006 - 09:54

Originally posted by giacomo
Accept it or not: He even was too old to compete against Schumacher 1996 (at least) onwards.

Their age difference was 9 years! 1994 Schumacher already had the upper hand. Maybe even in 1992/93.


Careful! You basically just said that MS can't really compete anymore against the young guns since 2003, when he had become 34 (as Senna was in 1994).

No serious, it's all idle speculation. It's a fact that at one point Senna would have felt his age and his performance would drop, but nobody can say for sure when that would have been. Anywhere from 1995 to 1998 is equally possible.

I definitely did not see any indication for it until his death, in fact his Adelaide '93 win was one of the strongest performances I've ever seen. Then in Brazil '94 he paid the price for refusing to concede the win to MS while driving an inferior car. And that's about it.

I've seen a few MS fans to portrait the start of 1994 as the beginning of a downward slope for Senna, but that's just stemming from their desperate wish to rewrite history as if MS had already beaten Senna.

Fact is fans of both where robbed of a true confrontation by fate, sad but true.

#88 giacomo

giacomo
  • Member

  • 6,977 posts
  • Joined: December 05

Posted 26 August 2006 - 10:39

Originally posted by as65p
You basically just said that MS can't really compete anymore against the young guns since 2003, when he had become 34 (as Senna was in 1994).

No, I didn't.

I definitely was talking about Senna and Schumacher.

#89 giacomo

giacomo
  • Member

  • 6,977 posts
  • Joined: December 05

Posted 26 August 2006 - 10:44

Originally posted by as65p
I definitely did not see any indication for it until his death, in fact his Adelaide '93 win was one of the strongest performances I've ever seen. Then in Brazil '94 he paid the price for refusing to concede the win to MS while driving an inferior car. And that's about it.

I've seen a few MS fans to portrait the start of 1994 as the beginning of a downward slope for Senna, but that's just stemming from their desperate wish to rewrite history as if MS had already beaten Senna.

Well, in 1994 Schumacher scored two wins, while Senna crashed twice.
For me this looks like the beginning of a downward slope. Cracking under pressure, that's how the old ones called this thing.

And the "inferior car" statement makes me yawn: Senna poled in all his 1994 races.
About his pole score in really inferior cars: Compare 1992/93.

#90 as65p

as65p
  • Member

  • 17,283 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 26 August 2006 - 11:04

Originally posted by giacomo
Well, in 1994 Schumacher scored two wins, while Senna crashed twice.
For me this looks like the beginning of a downward slope. Cracking under pressure, that's how the old ones called this thing.

And the "inferior car" statement makes me yawn: Senna poled in all his 1994 races.
About his pole score in really inferior cars: Compare 1992/93.


Hey if you just post fanboy drivel, there is no point arguing with you. Goodbye!

#91 giacomo

giacomo
  • Member

  • 6,977 posts
  • Joined: December 05

Posted 26 August 2006 - 11:05

Originally posted by as65p
Hey if you just post fanboy drivel, there is no point arguing with you.

"Fanboy drivel" is not a very strong argument.

Feel free to show the mistakes in my posting. If you are able to do so.

#92 as65p

as65p
  • Member

  • 17,283 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 26 August 2006 - 11:18

Originally posted by giacomo
"Fanboy drivel" is not a very strong argument.

Feel free to show the mistakes in my posting. If you are able to do so.


It's a bit pointless to show someone water in an ocean, don't you think?

#93 giacomo

giacomo
  • Member

  • 6,977 posts
  • Joined: December 05

Posted 26 August 2006 - 11:22

Originally posted by as65p
It's a bit pointless to show someone water in an ocean, don't you think?

Thank you for making me laugh. :rotfl:

#94 aditya-now

aditya-now
  • Member

  • 7,036 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 26 August 2006 - 11:24

Parallel universe thus.

1994, 1995 and 1996 world championships would have gone Senna's way.
That makes Senna 6 WDC's, Schumacher 0.

Schumacher would have stayed thus at Benetton, probably till the end of 1998. Senna would have changed to Ferrari in 1997. If he or Villeneuve would have won the 1997 WDC remains a question. Probably Senna.

Senna would have driven his final two years with Ferrari (1997 and 1998) - he always wanted to finish his career at Ferrari. 1998 might have been won by Hakkinen or Senna. Probably Hakkinen. So one WDC would have stemmed from Senna at Ferrari - and the Brazilian would have finished his career with 7 WDC's.

Schumacher would have gone to Ferrari in 1999. The 2000 WDC would have been won by Hakkinen (after at least 1999 also for the Finn), as Schumacher would not have had the same edge in 2000, being in Ferrari shorter than in the real world.

Schumacher would have won the WDC's 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004, thus standing now at 4 WDC crowns to his credit.
Hakkinen would have three instead of two.

So the winners in this parallel universe scenario would be Senna (+4 championships) and Hakkinen (+1 championship).
The losers would have been Hill (no WDC), Villeneuve (no WDC) and Schumacher (3 WDC's less than in the real world).

That's a stretch, by all means, I know. But not that improbable.

#95 Kubica

Kubica
  • Member

  • 41 posts
  • Joined: April 06

Posted 26 August 2006 - 11:29

it looks like as65p has forgot that Schumacher had ford engine .(20-30 hp less then Senna?)

THis bullshit story about Williams being inferior car is bulid around "bad handling"..but do you know how much time it cost Senna on one lap ?? No.
It might be 0,1s or 0,2s or even less.
People believes that it was really big disadvantage only because GOD was beaten by SCHUMACHER ..
Even if this handling was really bad ,then I can admit the cars were equall ( Schumacher had less powered engine.)
But Williams 94 and inferior :lol:

#96 giacomo

giacomo
  • Member

  • 6,977 posts
  • Joined: December 05

Posted 26 August 2006 - 11:36

Originally posted by Kubica
THis bullshit story about Williams being inferior car is bulid around "ban handling"..but do you know how much time it cost Senna on one lap ??

Bad handling is the result of bad set-up.

Damon Hill was Williams' main test driver from 1992 until late 1993, and then again from spring 1994 until late 1996. During all this time the Williamses had fantastic handling.

Only during the Senna era Williams seemed to suffer from bad handling. By coincidence?

#97 Cheap Wine Alesi

Cheap Wine Alesi
  • Member

  • 2,723 posts
  • Joined: December 04

Posted 26 August 2006 - 12:20

Originally posted by giacomo
Bad handling is the result of bad set-up.

Damon Hill was Williams' main test driver from 1992 until late 1993, and then again from spring 1994 until late 1996. During all this time the Williamses had fantastic handling.

Only during the Senna era Williams seemed to suffer from bad handling. By coincidence?


Senna hardly tested in 1994 winter, and hill did the most testing and the car simply sucked.

Only rule changes and the time helped williams get the car working.

But in the first few races of the year the williams was inferior to the benetton.

oh and senna didnt crash twice in first 2 races, he was rammed out in one race and in the other one after lapping his teammate to keep the pace against a clearly superior car, he made a mistake.
Your hatred for Senna is shining through your posts.

#98 Kenaltgr

Kenaltgr
  • Member

  • 892 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 26 August 2006 - 12:39

Originally posted by giacomo
Well, in 1994 Schumacher scored two wins, while Senna crashed twice.
For me this looks like the beginning of a downward slope. Cracking under pressure, that's how the old ones called this thing.

And the "inferior car" statement makes me yawn: Senna poled in all his 1994 races.
About his pole score in really inferior cars: Compare 1992/93.


When Senna had the best car his pole margins over 2nd place were huge, throughout his career. His pole gaps to Schuamcher in 94 were a few tenths, you think(in your bias MS world) Senna had the best car and only gets pole by 2-3 tenths AND Hill is 1+ seconds slower than the Benetton with Williams being a faster car than the Benetton :rotfl:

PS. 92-93 Williams scored 30 out of 32 poles. Wake up, MS-lover, the only other driver to score pole was Senna. Schumacher did absolutely nothing against the Williams 92-93 supercars, even when Benetton was at least the 2nd best car throughout 1993.

#99 Kenaltgr

Kenaltgr
  • Member

  • 892 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 26 August 2006 - 12:47

Originally posted by giacomo
Bad handling is the result of bad set-up.

Damon Hill was Williams' main test driver from 1992 until late 1993, and then again from spring 1994 until late 1996. During all this time the Williamses had fantastic handling.

Only during the Senna era Williams seemed to suffer from bad handling. By coincidence?


Yes it was Senna's fault. It had nothing to do with the 1994 rules banning active suspension, which is what made the Williams a supercar in 92-93. I wonder why Hill had amazing handling in the 1993 car but suddenly had crap handling throughout 1994. This the same Hill who completely dominated Schumacher in 1993 but was suddenly 1+ seconds slower than the Benetton throughout the first half of 94. It's easy to work out, even for a biased MS-lover.

Advertisement

#100 jo-briggs

jo-briggs
  • Member

  • 175 posts
  • Joined: June 06

Posted 26 August 2006 - 12:49

He would have lost the World Championship to Ben Hur!

Come back Dr Who all is forgiven.........