74 replies to this topic

[Bernd Rosemeyer]

If Senna chose Ferrari instead of Williams in 1994, what would the outcome have been? Had he been fast enough to win 5 successive titles for the Italian marque like the youngster Schumacher did?

[Henri Greuter]

Originally posted by Bernd Rosemeyer
If Senna chose Ferrari instead of Williams in 1994, what would the outcome have been? Had he been fast enough to win 5 successive titles for the Italian marque like the youngster Schumacher did?

I don't think so.
Since 1991, Senna appeared to be less motivated into building up a team and get it out of troubles and improve it. MCLaren had to pay big time for it to keep him in 1993 after he had expressed his doubts about the team being competitive.
And he was willing to drive for free if driving for Williams, by the the acknowledged best team with the best cars in F1.
Ferrari was nowhere compared with McLaren, let alone Williams.

I don't think Senna had the desire to go through yet another Toleman and Lotus experience again unless payed a fortune that made his McLaren salary of 1993 pocket money.
The desire to drive for Ferrari that some drivers have, I don't believe that he had such feelings at all. The past proved he was in F1 because of himself and himself only.

I think that had he tried Ferrari, he would have left soon enough had another team wanting to pay his salaries demands and/or being offered the best car of the moment.


Henri

[BorderReiver]

About the only team he ever really expressed a positive desire to drive for, without factoring in their performance, was Minardi. Apparently he told Giancarlo Minardi, he'd do his last F1 season for Faenza if he got the chance. Which might've been fun .

[kayemod]

Originally posted by Bernd Rosemeyer
If Senna chose Ferrari instead of Williams in 1994, what would the outcome have been?

I don't think so either, lots of young drivers have said things like, "Of course, I'd like to go to Ferrari eventually", when being pumped by interviewers, but I don't recall Senna ever saying anything like that. All he ever wanted was the best car he could get his hands on, and in 1993, Ferrari was still some way away from that. I couldn't see Ayrton stimulating any team in the way Schumacher did.

[Aloisio]

Senna didn't choose Ferrari cuz he wanted to drive the best car (that is a very smart way to win races and championships of course).
Anyway in 1994 he had the car he was craving for since 1992, and scored zero points.

[Rob]

Originally posted by BorderReiver
About the only team he ever really expressed a positive desire to drive for, without factoring in their performance, was Minardi. Apparently he told Giancarlo Minardi, he'd do his last F1 season for Faenza if he got the chance. Which might've been fun .

I wish we'd had the chance to see that, it would have been entertaining!

[zg1972]

He would not have signed for Ferrari for 1994 in first place. He was old enough and in such a stage of his career that he wasn't prepared to go into a team that needed several years of hard work to become world beaters. Not that Senna was ever too much of a team builder but by 1993 all he wanted was to step into the best car.

Had he, by any chance, signed for Ferrari in 1994, it would have been a short adventure with mutually unsatisfactory ending. There's no doubt he would have driven his socks off and scored some good results but that would be all. He would still be beaten in the WDC standings as Ferrari's car simply wasn't quick enough.

[Bernd Rosemeyer]

Originally posted by Aloisio
that is a very smart way to win races and championships of course

It is called the Fangio way.

[Der Pate]

As far as I know, Senna wanted to end his career at Ferrari...but as he didn´t think of his career-end in 1994, Ferrari was no possibility for him at this time...

I wonder why there is still that "fairy-tale" alive, that Schumacher build up a successfull Ferrari-team...???...Schumacher was one of the best driver...agreed...but Ferrari gave him the best people like Brawn or Byrne to become successfull...all Schumacher had to do, was to test the car and drive races...Schumacher never build up a team...

[Bernd Rosemeyer]

Didn't Schumacher bring in those people from Benetton?

[Der Pate]

Originally posted by Bernd Rosemeyer
Didn't Schumacher bring in those people from Benetton?

Why should he have done that...as a driver...???

[kayemod]

Originally posted by Der Pate


Why should he have done that...as a driver...???

Simple, the Brawn, Byrne, Schumacher etc combination had achieved a great deal at Benetton, and MS believed (rightly) that they could do the same thing at Ferrari. The sad aspect of that was that Benetton weren't exactly 'squeaky clean' in the way they went about winning, and they took much of that attitude to Ferrari, so they were never going to win prizes for ethics or sportsmanship with either team. But of course, 'Effwun' isn't really a 'sport' anymore, just a very expensive business operation.

[cpbell]

My era! I have always been dubious as to how journalists can assess Schey's team-building abilities for the reason that F1 has been a very closed shop since the 1980s. I suspect that the limit of a driver's powers in that area is car development, inspring confidence in technical and race teams, and appearing on the factory floor to boost morale.

[Der Pate]

Schumacher didn´t build up a team...at Benetton he had the luck to have the best people around him...and at Ferrari there was Jean Todt, whom I don´t rate to high but who had the knowledge and ability to hire Brawn and Byrne...

The only thing Schumacher did was to race and to motivate the crew with his drives...

[Henri Greuter]

Originally posted by Der Pate
Schumacher didn´t build up a team...at Benetton he had the luck to have the best people around him...and at Ferrari there was Jean Todt, whom I don´t rate to high but who had the knowledge and ability to hire Brawn and Byrne...

The only thing Schumacher did was to race and to motivate the crew with his drives...

I wholeheartedly agree with you that MS wasn't the lone factor that made Ferrari good again.
It was also the fact that he had a number of people around him back at benetton (first) and then at Ferrari.
But I do believee that this entire team of driver, engineers designers enhanced themselves and another and become stronger together then that it should have been had one of them left and his place taken by someone else.
The Todt-Byrne-Brown-Schuey combo and the outhers around them was a near perfect team that could have be successful just about everyhere else, had they been given the freedom to work as they wanted to.
Like briatore permitted, and DiMontezemolo did...

I don't think they would have been successful at Williams because of the fact that Frank and Patrick always were in control and had the final word and want things to go their way.

But having said all oof that, has there ever been a period of time within his career that Senna created such a group of people around him and do something similar?
MS stayed with Ferrary, even after 4 years of loosing out on the title, despite the fact he was clos on two occasions. But he hung on and got the rewords the next 5 years.
I seriously doubt if Senna had accepted these kind of defeats in four year in a row. I think it to be likely he would have left by then, if not quit racing alltogether.


Henri

[Bernd Rosemeyer]

Originally posted by Henri Greuter
I seriously doubt if Senna had accepted these kind of defeats in four year in a row. I think it to be likely he would have left by then, if not quit racing alltogether.


Henri

Just realised that Senna would be 38 after 4 years of defeat, and would be 43 had he then won 5 titles in a row like Schumacher. Very difficult to achieve.

[Todd]

It seems amazing that Ferrari would have hired Senna after 1990, but then it was pretty revealing that Williams would take him too.

[David Force]

Originally posted by Bernd Rosemeyer
If Senna chose Ferrari instead of Williams in 1994, what would the outcome have been? Had he been fast enough to win 5 successive titles for the Italian marque like the youngster Schumacher did?

Ayrton told me while sitting beside Count Gughi Zanon's pool at his house on Cap Ferrat in 1989 on the Friday before the Monaco Grand Prix that emotionally he would love to finish his career in a Ferrari but he would always wish to drive drive the fastest car. I am pretty sure people have said there was evidence a deal had been done at some time ?

When I quizzed him about the then new automatic 'flipper' gearboxes and wasn't he disappointed that they reduced the skilled input of the best drivers he responded simply "They make you faster'.

I guess that may answer your questions...

[as65p]

Originally posted by Bernd Rosemeyer


Just realised that Senna would be 38 after 4 years of defeat, and would be 43 had he then won 5 titles in a row like Schumacher. Very difficult to achieve.

Well, that's assuming Senna would have failed the same way MS did in '97 and '98.

Not a given, I'd say...;)

Personally I don't think Senna would ever have signed for Ferrari. My guess ist that he would either have stayed at Williams till the end, or returned to McLaren some day.

[Der Pate]

Originally posted by Henri Greuter

But having said all oof that, has there ever been a period of time within his career that Senna created such a group of people around him and do something similar?
MS stayed with Ferrary, even after 4 years of loosing out on the title, despite the fact he was clos on two occasions. But he hung on and got the rewords the next 5 years.
I seriously doubt if Senna had accepted these kind of defeats in four year in a row. I think it to be likely he would have left by then, if not quit racing alltogether.


Henri

Senna had the same ability as Schumacher to motivate the people in his team and push them through his racing-skills...I mean...the little mechanic saw his driver racing up to the limit...so he wanted to deliver, too...

When Berger was at McLaren-Honda with Senna you could see, that he was the number 2, although not officially...Senna´s pitstops were faster and more acurate...Senna´s McLaren didn´t have so many mechanic-failures like Berger´s...I don´t think, that there was a scheme...but Senna simply motivated his crew better...

Schumacher didn´t lose 4 titles because of inferior cars...he simply lost championships, which were very tight...he had no cause to leave Ferrari...they gave him good material for a championship...the others were simply more lucky...

[cpbell]

Originally posted by David Force


Ayrton told me while sitting beside Count Gughi Zanon's pool at his house on Cap Ferrat in 1989 on the Friday before the Monaco Grand Prix that emotionally he would love to finish his career in a Ferrari but he would always wish to drive drive the fastest car. I am pretty sure people have said there was evidence a deal had been done at some time ?

When I quizzed him about the then new automatic 'flipper' gearboxes and wasn't he disappointed that they reduced the skilled input of the best drivers he responded simply "They make you faster'.

I guess that may answer your questions...

Fascinating insight!

[EvDelft]

I think, that when Senna had the possibility to sign for Ferrari in stead of Próst, he could have and still won the championship in 1990.;) But he didn't leave McLaren, and the rest is history... Or when he stayed with Lotus in 1987, possible shift to Ferrari? Perhaps, but the problem was the unrelyability (how to write that ) of the red cars at that time.

I do think it would have made any difference for the reds, but at what point is the question to be meant for Senna to go to Ferrari? In stead of Williams? In stead of McLaren? In stead of Lotus? That could matter, you know...

Yes, I do believe Senna could have one a title for Maranello. But I am not sure, because he also struggled with the 97 and the 100 from Lotus. So that is the questionmark that holds me from saying 'yes'. Although I don't know why Senna was unable to fight for a championship in the Camel-Loti.

[kayemod]

Originally posted by Der Pate


...Senna´s McLaren didn´t have so many mechanic-failures like Berger´s...I don´t think, that there was a scheme...but Senna simply motivated his crew better...

I'd say this discussion should be in Racing Comments, but it's the first time I've ever seen the McLaren team accused of fielding cars that were unequal in any way. Maybe Gerhard was just unlucky, but given McLaren's long history of providing both drivers with exactly the same equipment, I'm sure we can dismiss any suggestion that his cars were in some way inferior to Senna's. Also in an earlier post, you seemed to be saying that Ferrari's run of success was largely down to Todt. Whilst not denying his undoubted talents, I've never been a Schumacher fan, but in this instance I'm sure that you're undervaluing Michael's contribution and considerably overvaluing the little Frenchman's. I think most would agree that the Schumacher/Brawn partnership was a very major factor indeed in Benetton's and Ferrari's winning streaks, Brawn, Byrne and others went to Maranello to work with Scumacher, I'm sure it wasn't Jean Todt's charm that enticed them.

[Der Pate]

Originally posted by kayemod


I'd say this discussion should be in Racing Comments, but it's the first time I've ever seen the McLaren team accused of fielding cars that were unequal in any way. Maybe Gerhard was just unlucky, but given McLaren's long history of providing both drivers with exactly the same equipment, I'm sure we can dismiss any suggestion that his cars were in some way inferior to Senna's. Also in an earlier post, you seemed to be saying that Ferrari's run of success was largely down to Todt. Whilst not denying his undoubted talents, I've never been a Schumacher fan, but in this instance I'm sure that you're undervaluing Michael's contribution and considerably overvaluing the little Frenchman's. I think most would agree that the Schumacher/Brawn partnership was a very major factor indeed in Benetton's and Ferrari's winning streaks, Brawn, Byrne and others went to Maranello to work with Scumacher, I'm sure it wasn't Jean Todt's charm that enticed them.

I didn´t say, that McLaren provided Berger with a inferior car...at least not intentionally...but Senna managed to motivate his crew with his driving-skills more than Berger did...that was my point...

To talk about Schumacher...I don´t think, that Schumacher had something to do with the hiring of Brawn or Byrne...as a driver this wasn´t his job...maybe it was easier for Todt to get Brawn or Byrne having Schumacher as driver...which engineer wouldn´t go to the team, which has the best driver and pays the most...???...but that fact isn´t enough to say, that Schumacher built up a team...

[Bernd Rosemeyer]

Originally posted by EvDelft
at what point is the question to be meant for Senna to go to Ferrari? In stead of Williams?

Exactly, in 1994 instead of Williams.

[Rob]

In the latest Motor Sport magazine, Eddie Jordan says he offered Senna 49% of his team for free, reasoning that 51% of team with Senna involved was worth more than 100% of the existing team. It seems that Senna was taking the offer very seriously.

[cpbell]

Originally posted by Rob
In the latest Motor Sport magazine, Eddie Jordan says he offered Senna 49% of his team for free, reasoning that 51% of team with Senna involved was worth more than 100% of the existing team. It seems that Senna was taking the offer very seriously.

Interesting thought.

[COUGAR508]

By 1993, Senna gave the impression that he had tired of chasing more technically-advanced cars (usually Williams), and although he had expressed misgivings about the advent of electronic driver aids, his attitude for '94 seems to have been, "if you can't beat them, join them".

If he had signed for Ferrari, I suspect that he may have retired from racing pretty quickly, as the cars were simply not competitive enough, and even his genius could not have bridged the gap. At 34, would he have had the motivation to try to drag Ferrari out of the doldrums?

[zg1972]

Originally posted by COUGAR508
By 1993, Senna gave the impression that he had tired of chasing more technically-advanced cars (usually Williams), and although he had expressed misgivings about the advent of electronic driver aids, his attitude for '94 seems to have been, "if you can't beat them, join them".

If he had signed for Ferrari, I suspect that he may have retired from racing pretty quickly, as the cars were simply not competitive enough, and even his genius could not have bridged the gap. At 34, would he have had the motivation to try to drag Ferrari out of the doldrums?

This is not meant as an offence to Senna or his dedication or talents but his approach never was to drag a team out of the doldrums. He left Toleman when a better opportunity arose. Then he left Lotus for better and then he left McLaren. When cars weren't good enough and a better offer was on hand, he would leave immediately. The same thing would have happened at Ferrari.

[kayemod]

Originally posted by Der Pate


I didn´t say, that McLaren provided Berger with a inferior car...at least not intentionally...but Senna managed to motivate his crew with his driving-skills more than Berger did...that was my point...

To talk about Schumacher...I don´t think, that Schumacher had something to do with the hiring of Brawn or Byrne...as a driver this wasn´t his job...maybe it was easier for Todt to get Brawn or Byrne having Schumacher as driver...which engineer wouldn´t go to the team, which has the best driver and pays the most...???...but that fact isn´t enough to say, that Schumacher built up a team...

Think you're very much on your own with that opinion, like I said I've never been a fan, but I've never heard anyone else describe Schumacher's contribution to Ferrari's success as "Just a driver". Brawn and Schumacher were like Astaire and Rogers, the sum of their endeavours added up to a lot more than the separate parts, and I'm sure that from the very beginning, the Ferrari deal was for the whole team, not "Just the driver", and that was all Michael's doing. You're underestimating the breadth of the man's talents.

[as65p]

Originally posted by kayemod


I'd say this discussion should be in Racing Comments, but it's the first time I've ever seen the McLaren team accused of fielding cars that were unequal in any way. Maybe Gerhard was just unlucky, but given McLaren's long history of providing both drivers with exactly the same equipment, I'm sure we can dismiss any suggestion that his cars were in some way inferior to Senna's. Also in an earlier post, you seemed to be saying that Ferrari's run of success was largely down to Todt. Whilst not denying his undoubted talents, I've never been a Schumacher fan, but in this instance I'm sure that you're undervaluing Michael's contribution and considerably overvaluing the little Frenchman's. I think most would agree that the Schumacher/Brawn partnership was a very major factor indeed in Benetton's and Ferrari's winning streaks, Brawn, Byrne and others went to Maranello to work with Scumacher, I'm sure it wasn't Jean Todt's charm that enticed them.

Strictly speaking there were occassions when McLaren fielded different cars: while desperately pursuing the technical superior Williams of '91, they had only one "lightweight" version of the MP4/6 ready in Hungary and of course it went to Senna who fought for the title.

Much is made of Senna's desire for the best car, but in truth that's what ever driver wants. As proved by the well known quotes, Senna may have thought about Ferrari, but I'd think more in the sense of a romantic dream. I doubt it would ever materialize in the real world, not as long as Ferrari didn't look like a top team.

The second factor is cash, something which I'd say was of truly secondary importance for Senna in the nineties, but of truly major importance for Schumacher and his manager in 1995.

Easy to forget that back then MS on his own had no interest at all to go to Ferrari, he had to be persuaded for months by Willi Weber.

Later, obviously, there is no doubt that both MS and Ferrari became more than happy with their partnership, but it certainly wasn't love at first sight, nor did MS go there for the challenge. That said, I certainly think he gave something special and very valuable to Ferrari, something which Senna wouldn't be able to do the same way, simply because of their different characters.

But at the start of the realtionship back in 1995/1996, it was basically the same kind of money-motivated move as later with JV and BAR... only the results weren't quite of the same quality.;)

[Der Pate]

Originally posted by kayemod


Think you're very much on your own with that opinion,(...)

I can deal with that...maybe I´m the only one with that opinion here at the forum...but I heard a similar quote of a friend of mine (Southafrican journalist) some years ago, who was an insider at that time...

I stay to that opinion...Schumacher was an excellent driver...but he was not the teambuilder at Ferrari...

[giacomo]

Originally posted by kayemod


I'd say this discussion should be in Racing Comments, but it's the first time I've ever seen the McLaren team accused of fielding cars that were unequal in any way. Maybe Gerhard was just unlucky, but given McLaren's long history of providing both drivers with exactly the same equipment, I'm sure we can dismiss any suggestion that his cars were in some way inferior to Senna's.

Senna always had the first call for car updates when he was paired with Berger.

And it's well known that Berger had to compete the whole 1990 season in a cockpit that was too small for him because it was tailor made for Senna.

[zg1972]

Originally posted by giacomo

Senna always had the first call for car updates when he was paired with Berger.

And it's well known that Berger had to compete the whole 1990 season in a cockpit that was too small for him because it was tailor made for Senna.

True. The supposed equality of McLaren drivers was proved to exist only on paper all to often. But it's the same with other teams, of course. In fact, absolutely equality is impossible and trying to achieve it is counter-productive.

[kayemod]

Originally posted by giacomo

Senna always had the first call for car updates when he was paired with Berger.

And it's well known that Berger had to compete the whole 1990 season in a cockpit that was too small for him because it was tailor made for Senna.

All this is common knowledge, but it's irrelevant to this discussion, which was about nothing more than the standard of preparation of both cars, and in that respect McLarens have always been as equal as human endeavour can achieve. This probably applies in much the same degree to all teams these days though, we've moved a long way from the days when even top teams like Lotus and Brabham sometimes fielded one good car for their number one driver, and something less good for their number two. Driving the number two car wasn't a recipe for success in most teams back in the 60s and 70s as statistics show only too well.

[Arjan de Roos]

Originally posted by Der Pate
...but he was not the teambuilder at Ferrari...

...but he was not the ONLY teambuilder at Ferrari...

[giacomo]

Originally posted by kayemod


All this is common knowledge, but it's irrelevant to this discussion, which was about nothing more than the standard of preparation of both cars, and in that respect McLarens have always been as equal as human endeavour can achieve. This probably applies in much the same degree to all teams these days though, we've moved a long way from the days when even top teams like Lotus and Brabham sometimes fielded one good car for their number one driver, and something less good for their number two. Driving the number two car wasn't a recipe for success in most teams back in the 60s and 70s as statistics show only too well.

I always had troubles to believe that teams like Lotus and Brabham purposely built their second car slower than possible.

1. I have a hard time to believe that its cheaper to build a slow 72D or BT44 than a fast one.
2. I have a hard time to believe that those teams purposely damaged their own competitiveness.
3. When those teams had fast second drivers (e.g. Peterson or Patrese) their second cars suddenly looked pretty fast.

[Bernd Rosemeyer]

Originally posted by giacomo

I always had troubles to believe that teams like Lotus and Brabham purposely built their second car slower than possible.

1. I have a hard time to believe that its cheaper to build a slow 72D or BT44 than a fast one.
2. I have a hard time to believe that those teams purposely damaged their own competitiveness.
3. When those teams had fast second drivers (e.g. Peterson or Patrese) their second cars suddenly looked pretty fast.

Wasn't Senna's reason for vetoing Warwick the fact he thought Lotus might not be able to field two top cars?

[Nikos Spagnol]

I always had troubles to believe that teams like Lotus and Brabham purposely built their second car slower than possible.
1. I have a hard time to believe that its cheaper to build a slow 72D or BT44 than a fast one.
2. I have a hard time to believe that those teams purposely damaged their own competitiveness.
3. When those teams had fast second drivers (e.g. Peterson or Patrese) their second cars suddenly looked pretty fast.

I don't think they would build a "slower" car purposely.

But resources are limited, and were much more limited back in the 60's or 70's. So, the team would not always have new pieces or updates to all drivers.

Until the 70's it was common to see teams alligning their drivers in different chassis' models, as they wouldn't have two avaliable new chassis, so the second driver should use an old car from the sesaon before.

If there's a big talent gap between the teammates, the resources will obviously be concetrated to the faster driver. Thus, he'll get a faster car then if the team should give equal priority to both drivers.

[Direct Drive]

"If ifs and buts were candies and nuts, we'd all have a merry Christmas."

[zg1972]

Originally posted by Bernd Rosemeyer


Wasn't Senna's reason for vetoing Warwick the fact he thought Lotus might not be able to field two top cars?

That's what he said but it wasn't the real reason. He simply eliminated the possible competition.

[kayemod]

Originally posted by Nikos Spagnol


I don't think they would build a "slower" car purposely.

But resources are limited, and were much more limited back in the 60's or 70's. So, the team would not always have new pieces or updates to all drivers.

Until the 70's it was common to see teams alligning their drivers in different chassis' models, as they wouldn't have two avaliable new chassis, so the second driver should use an old car from the sesaon before.

If there's a big talent gap between the teammates, the resources will obviously be concetrated to the faster driver. Thus, he'll get a faster car then if the team should give equal priority to both drivers.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

[giacomo]

Originally posted by Nikos Spagnol

I don't think they would build a "slower" car purposely.

But resources are limited, and were much more limited back in the 60's or 70's. So, the team would not always have new pieces or updates to all drivers.

That was the case not only in teams like Lotus or Brabham, and not only in the 60ies or 70ies.

Compare the McLaren situation in the early 90ies, when Senna always had the first call for new pieces or updates. Same story.

Originally posted by Nikos Spagnol

Until the 70's it was common to see teams alligning their drivers in different chassis' models, as they wouldn't have two avaliable new chassis, so the second driver should use an old car from the sesaon before.

I doubt the truth of that statement.

[Bernd Rosemeyer]

Originally posted by giacomo
Compare the McLaren situation in the early 90ies, when Senna always had the first call for new pieces or updates. Same story.

What happened to Lauda's McLaren in 1985? It broke down frequently while Prost's surprisingly hold together most of the times.

[man]

lly posted by Henri Greuter [/i]



I wholeheartedly agree with you that MS wasn't the lone factor that made Ferrari good again.Henri [/QUOTE]

In pre-sesion testing in 1993, Ferrari were five seconds of the Williams pace. By the end of 1995, they were capable of constant podium finishes, the odd pole and race win. Not that different to 1996. The Schumacher factor is way over emphasised. Ferrari were on a significant upwards trend before the German arrived. Schumacher fan boys will always attempt to paint a different reality one way or another for perverse reasons, but that is their business. Schmacher clearly dida good job but with the resources available, the treatment of his number 2 driver, the focus of the entire team around him, the championships were never going to be a surprise.

[quote]Originally posted by Henri Greuter

But having said all oof that, has there ever been a period of time within his career that Senna created such a group of people around him and do something similar?
MS stayed with Ferrary, even after 4 years of loosing out on the title, despite the fact he was clos on two occasions. But he hung on and got the rewords the next 5 years.
I seriously doubt if Senna had accepted these kind of defeats in four year in a row. I think it to be likely he would have left by then, if not quit racing alltogether.Henri [/quote]

I think it was more a case of Senna was motivated by competing for wins rather than accumilating money. Winning was his life, Schumacher prefered the money or "challenge" as it is put by his fans. First of all, I dont think Senna would have been in the position of losing four straight championships with the sheer resources that Schumacher had at his disposal. IMO, Senna would have got the job done where Schumacher initally failed. Judging by references from close insiders to Senna and the Ferrari team, it seems all the evidence suggests he would have liked to have end his career with Ferrari. All if's and but's, a bit of a pointless discussion, and not very important, but thought i had to counter balance some of the Schumacher fan tendencies to depict an alternate, distorted fanatical view of history.


;)

[man]

Originally posted by zg1972
That's what he said but it wasn't the real reason. He simply eliminated the possible competition.

A common opinon generated within the large anti-Senna circles on atlas, but, unfortunatley an opinion based on nothing other than subjective emotional portrayal of a controversial character. I believe a Lotus insider from the time has appeared on this forum and generally rubbished off the idea that Senna was afraid or refused to have competition. The fact that he willingly sought to drive for McLaren, alongside the supposed most complete driver of the time, Alan Prost in 1988 and the fact that he openly suggested he wanted to partner either Nige or Prost at Williams and the fact that he accepted Berger as a teammate, all of whom had significantly better pedigree than amiable Derek Warwick, kind of makes the the Senna afriad of competition camp look distinctly absurd - to put it mildly.

As you were.

[stuartbrs]

I remember reading how impressed Schumacher was by the 1995 Ferrari when he first drove it in testing, and saying it was a lot better than his 1995 Bennetton. Then again, you would say that in your new team.

The Senna better car thing comes from 1986 when he quite rightly said that Lotus were incapable of fielding 2 top cars. Meaning that once his salary was taken from the budget, there was no way Lotus at that time could build, engineer, and race 2 equal cars. Had he taken a huge pay cut, then yes, they could have. There are ex Lotus guys on this forum that could probably back that up one way or the other.

[giacomo]

Originally posted by stuartbrs

The Senna better car thing comes from 1986 when he quite rightly said that Lotus were incapable of fielding 2 top cars. Meaning that once his salary was taken from the budget, there was no way Lotus at that time could build, engineer, and race 2 equal cars. Had he taken a huge pay cut, then yes, they could have. There are ex Lotus guys on this forum that could probably back that up one way or the other.

It would be nice to hear those ex Lotus guys explaining how exactly it was cheaper to build a slower 98T than a clone of the original design.

Did Lotus develop extra cheap and slow parts for the Dumfries and Nakajima cars?

[stuartbrs]

No, obviuously Lotus didnt build an inferior car, but all the best bits must have gone to Senna`s cars. How long does it take to strip and rebuild a car properly between Grand Prix?? I`m guessing that one car was perhaps rebuilt a little more than the other. Also, Senna had a Qualifying car and a race car every race, Williams shared the Q car on a race by race basis, I guess thats one of the things that Senna got every race that the second driver didnt.
Was Hethel in the same league as Didcot or the McLaren factory in 1986? Could Lotus really afford to maintain 2 top line drivers at the front of the field in 1986?

[man]

Originally posted by giacomo

It would be nice to hear those ex Lotus guys explaining how exactly it was cheaper to build a slower 98T than a clone of the original design.

Did Lotus develop extra cheap and slow parts for the Dumfries and Nakajima cars?

I'm afriad you would be insulting the gentlemen/gentleman in question by asking him to address such a flawed premise.

It is not about going to extra lengths to produce unequal cars - which is a rather simplistic an innacurate analysis of the scenario in question, but rather equal distribution of resouurces within a given timespan. A driver of Warwick's stature would demand more of an equal distribtion than drivers of the ilk of Dumfries and Nakajima ever could. Senna thought it to be the case, Lotus thought it to be the case, their mechanics thought it to be the case, and Warwick also agreed it were the case in an article in Prix Editions from 1990. Case closed me thinks.