Jump to content


Photo

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


  • Please log in to reply
161 replies to this topic

#101 AndreasF1

AndreasF1
  • Member

  • 1,191 posts
  • Joined: February 02

Posted 26 August 2006 - 13:34

People tend to forget that the early Benetton of 94 was fitted with TC? Every corner gain a tenth by the end of a lap you get your advantage. Everybody knew it, after the FIA put Benetton under scrutiny Hill was much closer in quali and the race...look on Forix. The only reason it was swiped under the carpet was to save the championship. Before Canada MS was on average 1 - 1.5 sec faster in Quali. After Canada MS was beaten consistently by Hill in quali right up to Hungary with not much in between them from there on.

Advertisement

#102 giacomo

giacomo
  • Member

  • 6,977 posts
  • Joined: December 05

Posted 26 August 2006 - 14:14

Originally posted by Kenaltgr
When Senna had the best car his pole margins over 2nd place were huge, throughout his career.

Sounds like fairy tales for me.

An example: Brazil 1988 - Senna in the superior McLaren-Honda poles 0.5 sec ahead of Nigel Mansell in the crappy Williams-Judd.
Not such a huge margin.

#103 giacomo

giacomo
  • Member

  • 6,977 posts
  • Joined: December 05

Posted 26 August 2006 - 14:17

Originally posted by Kenaltgr
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.

Apparently you are talking about Interlagos only, where Hill had all sorts of troubles.

Because in Aida and Imola Hill was NOT 1+ seconds slower than Schumacher. Despite his number two status at Williams.

#104 giacomo

giacomo
  • Member

  • 6,977 posts
  • Joined: December 05

Posted 26 August 2006 - 14:21

Originally posted by Cheap Wine Alesi
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.

Result: Two (2) crashes.

Like I stated above.

#105 Kenaltgr

Kenaltgr
  • Member

  • 892 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 26 August 2006 - 17:43

Originally posted by giacomo
Result: Two (2) crashes.

Like I stated above.




A donkey dangerous move by Hakkinen who just crashed into the back of the Williams. Hakkinen was banned 2 races later that year when he did a similar move in Hockenheim at the start and wrecked 4 cars. Schumacher can thank HAkkinen for the win in Aida, and the Benetton launch control was extremely effective on the dirty side of the track(along with the French gp start that year).

#106 AndreasF1

AndreasF1
  • Member

  • 1,191 posts
  • Joined: February 02

Posted 26 August 2006 - 18:05

Giacomo writes:

Sounds like fairy tales for me.


An example: Brazil 1988 - Senna in the superior McLaren-Honda poles 0.5 sec ahead of Nigel Mansell in the crappy Williams-Judd.
Not such a huge margin.



You ever heard the saying that the sum is greater than its parts? You have to look at his entire quali record not just once race. Judging by your posts it's apparent that either you are ignorant or that you haven't been watching F1 actively in the 80's and early 90's. For every lame example that you give trying to discredit Senna's qualifying Status, I give you 10 that prove you wrong. If I took your argument at face value I'd have to say that MS sucks in quali.

An example: Spa 1995 - Schumacher in the far superior Benetton is 5 seconds of pole against the inferior Ferrari of Berger and 3 seconds slower than his teammate. Very smart huh? :rolleyes:

#107 Kubica

Kubica
  • Member

  • 41 posts
  • Joined: April 06

Posted 26 August 2006 - 18:06

Hakkinen have noting to do with Schumachers win at Aida .
OPen yours eyes .. IT WAS SENNA WHO MADE MISTAKE .
If he would have clean start then he would go first in the corner...>
btw remember that Schumacher held Senna at Brazil...>

Schumacher should have said thx to Senna for making 2 mistakes :lol:

#108 AndreasF1

AndreasF1
  • Member

  • 1,191 posts
  • Joined: February 02

Posted 26 August 2006 - 18:13

Kubica

It was senna that made a mistake at the start.



I agree, Senna should have apologized to Hakkinen for getting hit from behind driven off the track.
:clap:

#109 Kubica

Kubica
  • Member

  • 41 posts
  • Joined: April 06

Posted 26 August 2006 - 18:31

Originally posted by AndreasF1
Kubica



I agree, Senna should have apologized to Hakkinen for getting hit from behind driven off the track.
:clap:


lopl...
Senna made mistake because he got wheelspin...what allowed Schumacher to get first into corner.

People are saying that Senna would win easily if hakk wouldnt hit him..
I strongly disagree with it coz Schumacher SOMEHOW managed to held Senna in Brazil..
Of course Mika should be blamed for crash .

#110 SeanValen

SeanValen
  • Member

  • 16,933 posts
  • Joined: February 01

Posted 26 August 2006 - 19:21

Brazil 1994 must of been very in the wall or don't be on the podium for Senna, perhaps if Brazil wasn't the first race, he wouldn't of done it, he was already way better then Hill, and if he wasn't the Senna we know, he could of perhaps settled for 2nd, but it was in his blood-dna not to give up a fight at Brazil, I admire it, just like MS at Hungary this year forgetting the points and being a racer, somtimes MS suffers from it's in his blood, so do it, but not as often as Senna did. Prost likely wouldn't of done what t Senna did, yence why Senna is remembered more, not thinking about the championship points, but ultimate glory first, if he could of lived with being 2nd, he would of been changing his ways. Certainly with todays points system, he would need to change his ways, or would he..

He could of weighed up the risks at Imola, and knew how much of a performance gap he was away from Hill, and feel proud of that fact alone, but no, he wanted to win, that was Senna, going even more, I'm not sure if driving slightly slower would of prevented his accident, but given all that he had seen on the weekend, he must of thought about the consequences, and ultimately stayed true to himself and on the limit. Could of picked up 12 points in 3 races, and wait for williams to get better, realise the limitations of the package, rather then in the wall or win, that was his attitude, his heart more then his head, I just wish it didn't cost him his life, but if he wanted to mount a championship challenge, he needed to put aside his pride to realise the limitations of his machinery and be patient like Schumi is sometimes after a loss, but Senna took loss extra badly, his greatest attribute for a viewer, but also a disadvantage. He was gonna be Senna right until the last lap. And that I admire, for what he did and what he stuck too. "I am designed to win." You don't say that unless you show it and put maximum effort in..

MS on Senna "A fantastic competitor and great personality," Imola 2004.

Spot on.

.

#111 jimm

jimm
  • Member

  • 3,227 posts
  • Joined: June 99

Posted 26 August 2006 - 19:41

Originally posted by SeanValen


.......... be patient like Schumi is sometimes after a loss, but Senna took loss extra badly, his greatest attribute for a viewer, but also a disadvantage.
.


MS had a few accidents in his early years....Do you think Imola could have helped shape MS's attitude from then on???

#112 lustigson

lustigson
  • Member

  • 4,722 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 03 March 2008 - 09:23

I've taken these forum murmerings one step further. :cool:

I'm working on a what-if (e-)book on this very subject. Senna survives his San Marino accident and returns behind the wheel of his Williams-Renault for the Monaco Grand Prix. He takes on Michael Schumacher for the World Championship in the remaining 13 GPs. The title battle leads to a thrilling climax in Adelaide, Australia, in 'The Encounter Down Under: an alternate version of the 1994 Formula One season'.

See how the story progresses and download each part of the book for free once I finish it, on www.encounterdownunder.com.

I'd be happy to hear your thoughts on the idea for this e-book, my assumptions for the story, et cetera. Feel free to comment either here or on my blog posts.

#113 Durant

Durant
  • Member

  • 694 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 03 March 2008 - 09:30

Its definately an intriguing idea.

#114 Ferrim

Ferrim
  • Member

  • 817 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 03 March 2008 - 11:22

I've been thinking of writing such a book for a long time! But I'm too lazy to do it :rotfl:

#115 lustigson

lustigson
  • Member

  • 4,722 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 03 March 2008 - 11:25

Originally posted by Ferrim
I've been thinking of writing such a book for a long time! But I'm too lazy to do it :rotfl:

:lol: I've had this idea for years. First I waited for someone else to take up the challenge, but no-one did. So I decided last August to do it myself. :rolleyes: :)

#116 VoidNT

VoidNT
  • Member

  • 1,561 posts
  • Joined: April 04

Posted 03 March 2008 - 11:34

Originally posted by lustigson

:lol: I've had this idea for years. First I waited for someone else to take up the challenge, but no-one did. So I decided last August to do it myself. :rolleyes: :)


Posted Image

:lol:

#117 Ferrim

Ferrim
  • Member

  • 817 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 03 March 2008 - 11:36

I've just read the prologue, I have one comment to do.

Actually Senna's crash happened in lap 7, not 6. The race was re-started at the end of lap 5, and Senna went on to complete the sixth lap, and crashed at the seventh. Then the race was red-flagged, and it was re-started by using the results at the end of lap 5, not 6 (much like the 2003 Brazilian GP was set with the results of two laps before Alonso's crash). That's why Senna is listed everywhere as having retired in lap 6.

This has an intriguing and symbolic consequence: that Ayrton Senna's last lap in a racing car, at full speed does not count for history: it does not count for his total of race laps or kilometers led, neither does it count for Williams', because officially it does not exist. :)

#118 Hacklerf

Hacklerf
  • Member

  • 2,332 posts
  • Joined: March 07

Posted 03 March 2008 - 11:45

Originally posted by Ferrim
I've just read the prologue, I have one comment to do.

Actually Senna's crash happened in lap 7, not 6. The race was re-started at the end of lap 5, and Senna went on to complete the sixth lap, and crashed at the seventh. Then the race was red-flagged, and it was re-started by using the results at the end of lap 5, not 6 (much like the 2003 Brazilian GP was set with the results of two laps before Alonso's crash). That's why Senna is listed everywhere as having retired in lap 6.

This has an intriguing and symbolic consequence: that Ayrton Senna's last lap in a racing car, at full speed does not count for history: it does not count for his total of race laps or kilometers led, neither does it count for Williams', because officially it does not exist. :)


thanks for that, interesting :up:

#119 lustigson

lustigson
  • Member

  • 4,722 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 03 March 2008 - 13:07

Originally posted by Ferrim
I've just read the prologue, I have one comment to do.

Actually Senna's crash happened in lap 7, not 6. The race was re-started at the end of lap 5, and Senna went on to complete the sixth lap, and crashed at the seventh. Then the race was red-flagged, and it was re-started by using the results at the end of lap 5, not 6 (much like the 2003 Brazilian GP was set with the results of two laps before Alonso's crash). That's why Senna is listed everywhere as having retired in lap 6.

This has an intriguing and symbolic consequence: that Ayrton Senna's last lap in a racing car, at full speed does not count for history: it does not count for his total of race laps or kilometers led, neither does it count for Williams', because officially it does not exist. :)

That's an interesting statistic, indeed. Weird, but interesting.

Advertisement

#120 DMJC

DMJC
  • Member

  • 92 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 03 March 2008 - 13:09

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.


I think you are mistaken if you think that Senna's attitude to other drivers, was something that occurred by 94. You could ask folk like Martin Brundle, who had to deal with Ayrton's uncompromising behaviour more than a decade earlier! Senna was probably the greatest F1 driver ever, imho. Certainly of his period, none other than Prost/Mansell, came close.But his greatest flaw was his determination to destroy the opposition, regardless of what was needed to do so. I found that unforgivable, and very sad. But, i blame the Clerks of the British Courses, who allowed him ( and others ) to develop those character faults, in the lower formulae that he competed in at UK circuits. Had he suffered bans and licence suspension for certain examples of unacceptable driving standards, then he would have held a heroic status for all his followers, and not be subject to recall over dubious practices, because he would have, imho, had more respect for other competitors. The same holds true of Michael Schumacher too.

All said and done though, i had a hole in my life created, by the events of Imola 94, that has stayed there, and only the arrival of Lewis Hamilton has made an impact on me since then. Senna was a natural racer beyond compare, and a rare and exciting human being, with an outlook and views. Not just the sop of a corporate conglomarate. When Senna spoke, people listened, and that as much as his driving, has created the legend. It was a legend that grew in his lifetime, and few can say that of their careers in motorsport.

Michael has produced some fine races, and exciting races in his career, but he always seemed withdrawn to me, save on rare occasions, when emotions might be glimpsed. That could not be said of Ayrton, the guy wore his heart on his sleeve like no other, and i miss him like hell....always have, always will.

#121 Dolph

Dolph
  • Member

  • 4,207 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 03 March 2008 - 16:32

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.


Paying 18 million for Senna is a bit different than paying 18 million for Mansell

#122 rolf123

rolf123
  • Member

  • 2,331 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 03 March 2008 - 18:43

Originally posted by DMJC


I think you are mistaken if you think that Senna's attitude to other drivers, was something that occurred by 94. You could ask folk like Martin Brundle, who had to deal with Ayrton's uncompromising behaviour more than a decade earlier! Senna was probably the greatest F1 driver ever, imho. Certainly of his period, none other than Prost/Mansell, came close.But his greatest flaw was his determination to destroy the opposition, regardless of what was needed to do so. I found that unforgivable, and very sad. But, i blame the Clerks of the British Courses, who allowed him ( and others ) to develop those character faults, in the lower formulae that he competed in at UK circuits. Had he suffered bans and licence suspension for certain examples of unacceptable driving standards, then he would have held a heroic status for all his followers, and not be subject to recall over dubious practices, because he would have, imho, had more respect for other competitors. The same holds true of Michael Schumacher too.

All said and done though, i had a hole in my life created, by the events of Imola 94, that has stayed there, and only the arrival of Lewis Hamilton has made an impact on me since then. Senna was a natural racer beyond compare, and a rare and exciting human being, with an outlook and views. Not just the sop of a corporate conglomarate. When Senna spoke, people listened, and that as much as his driving, has created the legend. It was a legend that grew in his lifetime, and few can say that of their careers in motorsport.

Michael has produced some fine races, and exciting races in his career, but he always seemed withdrawn to me, save on rare occasions, when emotions might be glimpsed. That could not be said of Ayrton, the guy wore his heart on his sleeve like no other, and i miss him like hell....always have, always will.


Yes I agree. Senna the man I love more than Senna the racer. Sometimes I watch old videos and interviews of him and wonder if he is God or humanity personified on Earth, and I am agnostic!

But then I'm puzzled why you like Lewis? His driving style is reminiscent of Senna, yes, but apart from that he is a total corporate wh0re never hesitating to say "Vodafone McLaren Mercedes" and never revealing anything about himself?

It was only at Hungary with his interview with Steve Ryder when we finally saw a little of Hamilton the man.

It's why I like Alonso - he is the closest to being anywhere near as articulate as Senna.

#123 Risil

Risil
  • Member

  • 12,239 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 03 March 2008 - 22:04

Perhaps more pertinently, given recent events, how would Indycar racing have been, given Senna's avowed ambition to race the Indy 500? :drunk:

#124 alfa1

alfa1
  • Member

  • 1,719 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 04 March 2008 - 02:38

Originally posted by lustigson
I'd be happy to hear your thoughts on the idea for this e-book, my assumptions for the story, et cetera. Feel free to comment either here or on my blog posts.



Well, I've read the prologue, and I dont mean any personal offense here, but these 'what if' alternative views of history arent worth the paper they're written on.
Why? Because they're all based on probabilities and likely outcomes.
But history isnt like that at all. Every year in F1 there are some outrageously bizzare happenings that nobody could possibly predict which make the seasons so controvertial and bloody interesting.
- 2 deaths in 1 racing weekend.
- MS getting all his 1997 season points removed after crashing with JV at Jerez
- Last years spy scandal
- the Michelin tyre fiasco at Indy
- MS breaking his leg at Silverstone
- Alonso spitting the dummy with McLaren and going back to Renault.

All of these and many more, NONE of them can ever appear in any alternative 'what if' histories.

#125 MONTOYASPEED

MONTOYASPEED
  • Member

  • 8,097 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 04 March 2008 - 04:52

Originally posted by coyoteBR
We'll never know how AS MaracanĂ£-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.


Reminds me of another Brazilian with a Maracana-sized ego. I think his last name was Piquet, without the 4 or 5 titles tho.;)

#126 lustigson

lustigson
  • Member

  • 4,722 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 04 March 2008 - 07:59

Originally posted by alfa1
Well, I've read the prologue, and I dont mean any personal offense here, but these 'what if' alternative views of history arent worth the paper they're written on.
Why? Because they're all based on probabilities and likely outcomes.
But history isnt like that at all. Every year in F1 there are some outrageously bizzare happenings that nobody could possibly predict which make the seasons so controvertial and bloody interesting.
- 2 deaths in 1 racing weekend.
- MS getting all his 1997 season points removed after crashing with JV at Jerez
- Last years spy scandal
- the Michelin tyre fiasco at Indy
- MS breaking his leg at Silverstone
- Alonso spitting the dummy with McLaren and going back to Renault.

All of these and many more, NONE of them can ever appear in any alternative 'what if' histories.

True. Reality often exceeds everyone's immagination. And what did Murray Walker say: "Anything can happen in Formula One, and it usually does."

#127 DMJC

DMJC
  • Member

  • 92 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 04 March 2008 - 13:00

Originally posted by rolf123


Yes I agree. Senna the man I love more than Senna the racer. Sometimes I watch old videos and interviews of him and wonder if he is God or humanity personified on Earth, and I am agnostic!

But then I'm puzzled why you like Lewis? His driving style is reminiscent of Senna, yes, but apart from that he is a total corporate wh0re never hesitating to say "Vodafone McLaren Mercedes" and never revealing anything about himself?

It was only at Hungary with his interview with Steve Ryder when we finally saw a little of Hamilton the man.

It's why I like Alonso - he is the closest to being anywhere near as articulate as Senna.


I'd heard LH give interviews before Hungary, and he came across as a very decent young man, and someone who had a developing charisma....Senna's grew, it did not just arrive with him in FF/FF2000....as to LH quoting his team, that is as Schuey used to do, and is indicative of a smart driver who is placing his team around him. Schuey never missed an opportunity to praise Ferrari, if you notice, every time LH arrives for work, or leaves his car broken, he goes to each team member and shakes a hand, rubs a shoulder, gives a hug, he is drawing every one into supporting him.That is where Ferdy went wrong, he just isn't that interested in others, apart from himself...and it shows. LH works as Shuey used to, and it will and already does, give him an advantage in Mclaren....Heikki will find that soon.
Best of all though, LH has that Senna style in the car, the way he is 'on it' instantly, and when tyre warmers go, i think LH will be a total revelation in the car at pitstops and in starts.

#128 Jimages

Jimages
  • Member

  • 141 posts
  • Joined: February 08

Posted 05 March 2008 - 10:44

Originally posted by lustigson 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.


No they certainly would have not! That wishbone wasn't just bent, it was flopper than a limp penis! The only way of sending that car back out, who ever was behind the wheel was to replace the wishbone, which would have taken too long.

Even Gilles Villeneuve wouldn't have driven a car with that wishbone, and Gilles if you remember tried racing his wagon on three wheels.

#129 Big Block 8

Big Block 8
  • Member

  • 2,423 posts
  • Joined: January 04

Posted 05 March 2008 - 10:54

Originally posted by Jimages


No they certainly would have not! That wishbone wasn't just bent, it was flopper than a limp penis! The only way of sending that car back out, who ever was behind the wheel was to replace the wishbone, which would have taken too long.

Even Gilles Villeneuve wouldn't have driven a car with that wishbone, and Gilles if you remember tried racing his wagon on three wheels.


Bah. Nothing that a splint, some iron wire and duct tape wouldn't fix in a flash. :)

#130 Jimages

Jimages
  • Member

  • 141 posts
  • Joined: February 08

Posted 05 March 2008 - 11:18

Duct tape?

This sounds more like NASCAR engineering. A simple but so very effective philosophy of:

If it moves but shouldn't = Duct tape!

If it doesn't move but should = WD40!

#131 Big Block 8

Big Block 8
  • Member

  • 2,423 posts
  • Joined: January 04

Posted 05 March 2008 - 11:37

Now you're getting there. ;)

#132 undersquare

undersquare
  • Member

  • 18,612 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 05 March 2008 - 11:42

One "if" is that if it had been Senna taken out in Adelaide, Williams would have protested.

#133 Big Block 8

Big Block 8
  • Member

  • 2,423 posts
  • Joined: January 04

Posted 05 March 2008 - 12:25

Originally posted by undersquare
One "if" is that if it had been Senna taken out in Adelaide, Williams would have protested.


And I'd bet a good sum, that FIA's verdict to leave the Benetton fuel rig incident unpunished (which was understandable, to not raise any more controversy after two fatalities that is) would have been completely different, without those fatalities.

#134 kenny

kenny
  • Member

  • 2,028 posts
  • Joined: February 99

Posted 05 March 2008 - 12:39

Originally posted by Big Block 8


And I'd bet a good sum, that FIA's verdict to leave the Benetton fuel rig incident unpunished (which was understandable, to not raise any more controversy after two fatalities that is) would have been completely different, without those fatalities.


+ also the teams who still had/used TC etc... (benetton, McLaren...) would also not have gotten away with it that easily...

#135 GiancarloF1

GiancarloF1
  • Member

  • 925 posts
  • Joined: December 07

Posted 05 March 2008 - 12:43

These kind of threads have no other intentions than just devalue Schumacher's efforts in the 90s with mostly an inferior car. But why nobody asks how would be F1 if Schumacher wasn't born?

Possibly we should have an average WDC in 94, 95, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004. Is this a happier scenario?

#136 Taxi

Taxi
  • Member

  • 3,034 posts
  • Joined: October 03

Posted 05 March 2008 - 13:43

Had senna survived, he wouldn't probabily race again or had many dificulties to do it.... So the answer is: "pretty much the same". :wave:

#137 Hames Junt

Hames Junt
  • Member

  • 302 posts
  • Joined: January 08

Posted 05 March 2008 - 15:32

Originally posted by Taxi
Had senna survived, he wouldn't probabily race again or had many dificulties to do it.... So the answer is: "pretty much the same". :wave:


I think he meant had Senna got out of the car unscathed. :

I think 1994 would have been too close to call but I think Senna may have won it, only just, Senna would marginally win 1995 then retire, Schumacher would stay at Benetton til the end of 97 and then move to Ferrari.

#138 Ferrim

Ferrim
  • Member

  • 817 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 05 March 2008 - 16:14

Originally posted by Hames Junt


I think he meant had Senna got out of the car unscathed. :


In fact his body did... it was a really unlucky crash.

#139 former champ

former champ
  • Member

  • 2,537 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 06 March 2008 - 12:07

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.


Right, since the only one Williams actually dumped (however it happened anyway) was Damon Hill. That's one myth about Williams that is more bullshit than truth. Where were Nelson, Alain, Nigel and Jacques, to name 4, dumped?

As far as I know, they all left of their own accord. Nelson for lotus (with Honda), Alain retired after 1993, Mansell went to IndyCar over pay disputes (in other words, he wasn't dumped) and Jacques left Williams to go start BAR, they didn't want to lose him.

Advertisement

#140 DMJC

DMJC
  • Member

  • 92 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 06 March 2008 - 14:22

Originally posted by former champ


Right, since the only one Williams actually dumped (however it happened anyway) was Damon Hill. That's one myth about Williams that is more bullshit than truth. Where were Nelson, Alain, Nigel and Jacques, to name 4, dumped?

As far as I know, they all left of their own accord. Nelson for lotus (with Honda), Alain retired after 1993, Mansell went to IndyCar over pay disputes (in other words, he wasn't dumped) and Jacques left Williams to go start BAR, they didn't want to lose him.


There you go again! Nelson left with the Honda motors, but Prost left because Senna was coming, Mansell was effectively dumped, because Prost was coming, and Mansell had been given a reduction in wages, which as WDC, he wouldn't accept, JV was ill advised, but apart from him, Frentzen got dumped...and in fact, ever since Alan Jones suddenly retired, with Reutemann following shortly after, both moves which severely affected the driver strength at Team Willy, FW has said ever since those days, that 'drivers are no more, no less, than just employees'....and he really doesn't get very close with any of them...respect yes, but 'buddy buddy' no way.....it's the Team that counts with FW, not the drivers....and i guess that is one of the reasons that FW is such a different Team Owner.

#141 Frank Tuesday

Frank Tuesday
  • Member

  • 816 posts
  • Joined: August 01

Posted 06 March 2008 - 14:36

Originally posted by lustigson
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.


I think that this ignores the fact that the Benetton was the class of the field at the start of the year. It was only after the mid season technical changes that the balance of power shifted. I think that the changes took away most/all of the handling advantage the Benetton had in the early races. I do think that Williams would have closed the gap somewhat, but not as quickly as they did.

#142 pUs

pUs
  • Member

  • 2,534 posts
  • Joined: November 99

Posted 06 March 2008 - 15:00

Originally posted by rolf123


Yes I agree. Senna the man I love more than Senna the racer. Sometimes I watch old videos and interviews of him and wonder if he is God or humanity personified on Earth, and I am agnostic!


Are you serious? :)

#143 TickTickBooom

TickTickBooom
  • Member

  • 1,043 posts
  • Joined: February 06

Posted 06 March 2008 - 20:32

This thread makes me cross. ):

#144 Victor

Victor
  • Member

  • 431 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 06 March 2008 - 22:54

In 1994 and 1995 both Schumacher and Senna would have been disqualified after pushing each other out in the decisive races for the title. Damon Hill would have won both titles.
In the first GP of 1997 they both would have been involved in an accident when:
a) Senna tried to give a break test to Schumacher at 350 Km/h and both crashed
b) Schumacher stopped his car on the track during the last lap of qualification right in front of Senna and both crashed
After leaving their cars they would start punching each other's helmet and suffer serious injuries in the hands bringing a sad end to both their careers.

#145 lustigson

lustigson
  • Member

  • 4,722 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 07 March 2008 - 07:40

Originally posted by Victor
In 1994 and 1995 both Schumacher and Senna would have been disqualified after pushing each other out in the decisive races for the title. Damon Hill would have won both titles.
In the first GP of 1997 they both would have been involved in an accident when:
a) Senna tried to give a break test to Schumacher at 350 Km/h and both crashed
b) Schumacher stopped his car on the track during the last lap of qualification right in front of Senna and both crashed
After leaving their cars they would start punching each other's helmet and suffer serious injuries in the hands bringing a sad end to both their careers.

:lol:

Weirder things have happened, though. ;)

#146 former champ

former champ
  • Member

  • 2,537 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 07 March 2008 - 12:26

Originally posted by DMJC


There you go again! Nelson left with the Honda motors, but Prost left because Senna was coming, Mansell was effectively dumped, because Prost was coming, and Mansell had been given a reduction in wages, which as WDC, he wouldn't accept, JV was ill advised, but apart from him, Frentzen got dumped...and in fact, ever since Alan Jones suddenly retired, with Reutemann following shortly after, both moves which severely affected the driver strength at Team Willy, FW has said ever since those days, that 'drivers are no more, no less, than just employees'....and he really doesn't get very close with any of them...respect yes, but 'buddy buddy' no way.....it's the Team that counts with FW, not the drivers....and i guess that is one of the reasons that FW is such a different Team Owner.


There I go again what? All you told me was Nelson left with Honda motors - not dumped. Prost left because Senna was coming, yes possibly - not dumped. Mansell left because he had reduced wages. Was he dumped? Well.....no. JV was Ill advised? With what? BAR was a massive gamble but, again, did Williams dump him? Well no, they wanted to keep him and made him an offer. Frentzen? He wasn't a World Champion so he's not relevant.

I agree that Frank Williams had a very different attitude regarding drivers but lets not get the truth mixed up with some sort of ridiculous myth. So what were you actually trying to say? Because in that post you simply proved my point, Williams have not 'dumped' the majority of their World Champions, Hill possibly being the only one. and I'm sure there is more to that story than simply him being 'dumped'......

#147 DMJC

DMJC
  • Member

  • 92 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 07 March 2008 - 13:24

Originally posted by former champ


There I go again what? All you told me was Nelson left with Honda motors - not dumped. Prost left because Senna was coming, yes possibly - not dumped. Mansell left because he had reduced wages. Was he dumped? Well.....no. JV was Ill advised? With what? BAR was a massive gamble but, again, did Williams dump him? Well no, they wanted to keep him and made him an offer. Frentzen? He wasn't a World Champion so he's not relevant.

I agree that Frank Williams had a very different attitude regarding drivers but lets not get the truth mixed up with some sort of ridiculous myth. So what were you actually trying to say? Because in that post you simply proved my point, Williams have not 'dumped' the majority of their World Champions, Hill possibly being the only one. and I'm sure there is more to that story than simply him being 'dumped'......


I'm sure NP felt 'dumped', as he had only gone to TW on the expectation of being the formal No1 driver....hence after 2 yrs of fighting NM, he was not impressed with the team!

Mansell had a take it or leave it offer, from TW, which was effectively saying, we don't need you, so stay if you want, but we're not bothered, that's an effective dump, in my view!

JV was made an offer, as you say, but not what would have been enough to keep him at TW, again, the team were showing it's driver, who's boss! Frentzen was dumped, as others have been, and Hill was most certainly dumped, as all of Britain protested!

It's a fact that TW do not care who is their driver/s, the only criteria is are they a racer! And when TW decide that this or that driver is not a racer enough for them, they dump them without a second thought. Sometimes this is costly to them as a Team, and they get it very wrong,imho, but it does mark them out as having guts and determination, and only being interested in racing and winning and surviving, which makes the an interesting team, imho.

#148 former champ

former champ
  • Member

  • 2,537 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 07 March 2008 - 13:47

Originally posted by DMJC
I'm sure NP felt 'dumped', as he had only gone to TW on the expectation of being the formal No1 driver....hence after 2 yrs of fighting NM, he was not impressed with the team!

Mansell had a take it or leave it offer, from TW, which was effectively saying, we don't need you, so stay if you want, but we're not bothered, that's an effective dump, in my view!

JV was made an offer, as you say, but not what would have been enough to keep him at TW, again, the team were showing it's driver, who's boss! Frentzen was dumped, as others have been, and Hill was most certainly dumped, as all of Britain protested!


Ok, I see what the problem is. This is your perception of dumped. Well that's fine but the reality is a bit different. For one, Piquet bolted on Williams as soon as he found out Honda were leaving them. At no stage did Williams boot him, he knew they would be stuffed without Honda and given Honda thought highly of Nelson, he naturally moved to Lotus. McLaren did show interest in him but Prost didn't want him there.

Mansell had a take it or leave it offer but that isn't dumped! Being dumped is we don't want you under any circumstance, financial or otherwise. Williams have never been big on massive driver salaries (even Senna wasn't on what he was at McLaren) so therefore it was up to Nigel. They wanted Mansell and Prost. Given his torrid time with Prost in 1990 at Ferrari and with a reduced salary, Mansell simply didn't think it was worth it. Dumped? No he wasn't.

JV? Williams were never going to be able to match BAR's salary for Jacques. Given it made him 2nd to Schumacher in earnings, its no surprise. Villeneuve thought with Williams in a downward turn with no Renault and an average chassis, he didn't want to wait around. So he went to BAR and turned down other teams also. In the end, a very bad decision but he took the risk. Leaving Williams wasn't the problem, its where he went which was. In any case, did Williams dump him? No, they simply couldn't match BAR's offer. Patrick Head has stated this numerous times.

Yes Frentzen was dumped but we are talking World Champion drivers here. Hill was also but, as I said, I think its more complicated. Even so, compared to your other examples, Hill was closer to dumped. The others all could have stayed at Williams if they so wished. They didn't.

#149 giacomo

giacomo
  • Member

  • 6,977 posts
  • Joined: December 05

Posted 07 March 2008 - 17:23

Originally posted by former champ
There I go again what? All you told me was Nelson left with Honda motors - not dumped. Prost left because Senna was coming, yes possibly - not dumped. Mansell left because he had reduced wages. Was he dumped? Well.....no. JV was Ill advised? With what? BAR was a massive gamble but, again, did Williams dump him? Well no, they wanted to keep him and made him an offer. Frentzen? He wasn't a World Champion so he's not relevant.

I agree that Frank Williams had a very different attitude regarding drivers but lets not get the truth mixed up with some sort of ridiculous myth. So what were you actually trying to say? Because in that post you simply proved my point, Williams have not 'dumped' the majority of their World Champions, Hill possibly being the only one. and I'm sure there is more to that story than simply him being 'dumped'......

Submitting the WDC a reduction of salary for the next season is a clear signal that he isn't welcome in the team any more.

And that's what happened to Piquet and to Mansell as well.

#150 Craven Morehead

Craven Morehead
  • Member

  • 4,484 posts
  • Joined: February 06

Posted 07 March 2008 - 20:31

Well we don't really know that those drivers received reduced offers from Frank do we? These things being the secrets they are. What we do know is that Mansell & Hill (to name two) both felt that they should be offered more, given their new WDC status (attained thanx to Frank's cars).

Frank always looked at the drivers as one more part of the overall package, I think. Interesting to note how those guys did once they left Williams, though..