Jump to content


Photo

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


  • Please log in to reply
161 replies to this topic

#151 giacomo

giacomo
  • Member

  • 6,977 posts
  • Joined: December 05

Posted 07 March 2008 - 20:41

Originally posted by Craven Morehead
Well we don't really know that those drivers received reduced offers from Frank do we?

I read contemporary reports about that reduced offers, written by journalists who had no reasons to tell fairy tales.


But strictly technically spoken you are right: We don't really know it.
Just like we don't know that the Tyrannosaurus Rex really existed.

Advertisement

#152 Craven Morehead

Craven Morehead
  • Member

  • 4,571 posts
  • Joined: February 06

Posted 07 March 2008 - 21:33

Or that Michael Schumacher had number one status stipulated in his contracts. :D Lotsa talk, no proof, because nobody but Michael, his legal team, and a select few Ferrari insiders (and their legal team) will ever know the ins & outs of his contracts.

Apples and oranges comparison imo, btw: There is actual physical evidence of T-rex; but none for these suposed salaray offers. What makes you think that those 'journalists' you mention had access to the actual Williams GP salary documents? I'd bet my house that they didn't; I've yet to see a professional of any sort share his private legal documents with journalists. Just more media frenzy. it's in the media's interest to create controversy, it sell papers afterall.

#153 giacomo

giacomo
  • Member

  • 6,977 posts
  • Joined: December 05

Posted 07 March 2008 - 21:48

I never said that those journos had access to any Williams documents. BTW, I highly doubt that Frank Williams made any salary offers in written form back then.

But it was an open secret in the 1987 paddock, that Williams wanted to downgrade Piquets salary to Mansell level; and it was another open secret in the 1992 paddock, that Williams wanted to bisect Mansells salary for 1993.

Of course you are entitled to deny that until you are blue in your face. ;)

#154 Craven Morehead

Craven Morehead
  • Member

  • 4,571 posts
  • Joined: February 06

Posted 07 March 2008 - 21:56

Well, it's prolly my line of work that makes me deal in factual evidence (don't ask). So from where I sit, "open secret" sounds more like 'hear-say'; as in no real proof, just a buncha flapping lips. Don't see that as any sort of denial, quite the contrary. I'd see the other position as gullibility. :D

I never said you said that. As to Frank not making offers in writing: serious? Piquet, Mansell, et al. walked without ever actually receivng a written offer? Now this I highly doubt. In Mansell's case I remember his big 'to do' farewell in front of the press and him holding up a piece of paper which he claimed was a revised offer from Frank that matched Nige's expectations, but it was all too late..etc (que typical Nigel melo-drama)

#155 giacomo

giacomo
  • Member

  • 6,977 posts
  • Joined: December 05

Posted 07 March 2008 - 21:59

Concerning the physical evidence of the T. Rex:
There is absolutely no certainness that all fossils that had been assigned to the T. Rex species by scientists are really T. Rex fossils.
And there is absolutely no certainness that scientists assembled those very same fossils correctly in the way as it had been assembled in a creature some 70 million years ago.


Its all about trust.
Trust to the credibility of journalists in one case, trust to the credibility of scientists in the other case.

#156 Craven Morehead

Craven Morehead
  • Member

  • 4,571 posts
  • Joined: February 06

Posted 07 March 2008 - 22:06

On this you are right of course. Better to trust neither then, imo. Everybody has an agenda. Journalsist need to sell papers, and scientists need to show 'results' to keep the grants rolling in.

I deal with journalists in my work a bit, and I can say that no matter how carefully you explain things to them, they invariably seem to get it wrong in thursday's paper. And they all love quoting you out of context to make whatever it is sound more 'steamy'.

On the whole, I'd say it's funny how if we repeat something enough times, it begins to become accepted as 'fact'.

#157 sopa

sopa
  • Member

  • 3,248 posts
  • Joined: April 07

Posted 07 March 2008 - 22:13

1994: Schumacher wouldn't have had those penalties (wouldn't have made such mistake on the parade lap at Silverstone to get blackflagged) and would have won the title in the best car, followed by Senna, Hill and others.

1995: Now with Williams being the best car, Senna wins the title ahead of Schumacher, Hill and others. Coulthard may have made his F1 debut in McLaren, replacing Mansell instead of Blundell.

Senna extends his Williams contract for two more years (doesn't want to go to McLaren, who really struggled in 95 - were even worse than in 94 then). Hill will be sacked by Williams after a poor 1995 season and will be replaced by Villeneuve. Schumacher extends his Benetton contract for two more years to take a proper revenge from Senna, Panis will be his new team-mate.:eek: Hill joins Ferrari alongside Alesi! Berger goes to Sauber to join Frentzen.

1996: Team Schumacher has again developed Benetton - now second season with Renault engines - into best car and Schumacher wins ahead of Senna, Villeneuve, Panis, Hill, Alesi, Hakkinen and Coulthard.

1997: Schumacher wins. Last season for aging Senna, who starts making mistakes and loses title. Villeneuve, Panis (who doesn't get injured in a Benetton! :p ) and the improved Ferraris and McLarens fight for third.

Let's assume that Renault as an engine manufacturer decides to leave regardless of Senna living or not. Now finally Todt manages to get Team Schumacher after back-to-back titles with Benetton. Hill and Alesi leave Ferrari (Hill to new Stewart team, Alesi to Jordan), Schumacher's new team-mate at Ferrari will be Frentzen.:eek: Benetton drivers are Panis and Fisichella. Williams hires Barrichello instead of Senna. Senna was the key person here by recommending Rubens.:)

1998: McLaren dominates, build-up year for Ferrari, who takes narrowly second position ahead of Benetton and Williams. Maybe Jordan involved too.

1999: McLaren and Ferrari in title contention.

From now on not much different from what actually happened.:)

#158 giacomo

giacomo
  • Member

  • 6,977 posts
  • Joined: December 05

Posted 07 March 2008 - 22:42

Originally posted by Craven Morehead
On the whole, I'd say it's funny how if we repeat something enough times, it begins to become accepted as 'fact'.

Very true.

In the case of F1 drivers like Senna it means, that we fans and outsiders never really know about the personality of those star drivers; we only know about their image as it was created and portrayed by the media.

#159 former champ

former champ
  • Member

  • 2,537 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 08 March 2008 - 04:42

Originally posted by Craven Morehead
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..


How is that relevant? Mansell went to America, came back and won a race in 1994 but was never the same, nor was he in a competitive car for 1995 and at that stage of his career, is it any wonder he couldn't be bothered?

Hill went to Arrows which was not a competitive package. In other words, anyone will struggle without a car capable. Whether you have left Williams or any other team as a World Champion isn't relevant.

Piquet the same after 1987.

Advertisement

#160 former champ

former champ
  • Member

  • 2,537 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 08 March 2008 - 04:46

Originally posted by giacomo
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.


I don't think that's correct so we'll agree to disagree. Particularly in Piquet's case but even Mansell's also. Nor did I see Senna offered an astronomical salary when he went to Williams in 1994, difference was he accepted it as he just wanted to sit in that car. Don't think Nigel cared enough after 1992 but I'm pretty sure remembering Williams wanted to run Mansell and Prost for 1993. Hardly 'not welcome....'

#161 giacomo

giacomo
  • Member

  • 6,977 posts
  • Joined: December 05

Posted 08 March 2008 - 07:12

Originally posted by former champ
I don't think that's correct so we'll agree to disagree. Particularly in Piquet's case but even Mansell's also.

Its quite obvious that you don't know what was going on back then.

That's not your fault; your fault is to oppose against those who know.

#162 former champ

former champ
  • Member

  • 2,537 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 09 March 2008 - 00:06

Originally posted by giacomo
Its quite obvious that you don't know what was going on back then.

That's not your fault; your fault is to oppose against those who know.


Ok Sir Frank. :lol: ;)