43 replies to this topic

[Captain Cranckcase]

Hi check this out!


Senna vs Schumacher
25 August 1991 - 1 May 1994
41 Races

Senna
41 GPS
120 GPS before 25 August 91
10 Wins
8 Poles
4 Fastest Laps
167 Points
18 Podiums
Laps Led
6 Accidents/Crash/Spin out
9 Mechanical Failures

Note: Senna crashed out of every race in 1994

Schumacher
41 GPS
0 GPS before 25 August 91
5 Wins (Belgian GP 1992, Portugese GP 1993, Brazilian GP 1994, Pacific GP 1994, San Marino GP 1994)
0 Poles
9 Fastest Laps
139 Points
19 Podiums
Laps Led
6 Accidents/Crash/Spin out
8 Mechanical Failures

Note: Schumacher would have won Monaco GP at 2nd attempt if it wasn't for hydralauics failure Senna took over lead and won it for the 6th time (a record)

MY CONCLUSION
2 Excellent drivers
Senna = more talent Schumacher = more brains
Senna = not god Schumacher = thinks hes god (just jokes)
Senna = legend caoz of death
Stats = nothing
Senna = Martyr = Greatest GP driver ever
Hendrix = Martyr = Greatest guitarst
JFK = Martyr = Greatest president
Princess Di = Martyr = great humanitarian
John Lennon = Martyr = greatest songwriter
etc, etc, etc, etc

If Schumacher dies at Imola next week he will be a legend like Senna otherwise he will be remembered like Prost sad but true!

[magic]

1.senna legend didn't start in imola'94 but monaco '84.

2.all statistics in that period are useless.
williams was so superior that old man patrese and rookie hill whupped senna AND MS.

[Sulla]

You forgot

Senna

1 WDC

[rock]

I don't know how these statistics would satisfy someone who keeps comparing MS to Senna. If u just look at the 93 season, all these statistics look like nothing. Senna heads out by miles.

Anyway, comparisions will continue as long as MS continues to reach Senna's record.

I hope people recognize what would have been if Senna was still alive.

[Smooth]

Originally posted by rock
I hope people recognize what would have been if Senna was still alive.

How do you know what 'would have been'? Senna spun himself out of Brazil, and was chasing when he crashed outin the Pacific GP, of '94. he was leading in Imola, but wasn't really dropping Schumacher, though those two were dropping the field. Without the active magic car Senna had in 1993, it would have been a close race, but who knows how it would have gone? Schumacher had arrived, and showed he would put up a great fight. Senna knew it, why don't you?

[magic]

good thinking.

let's judge senna on 1 race ( he was punted off in aida like zonta punted off ms in austria '00 and in imola his steering broke like ms's brakes in silverstone '99) instead of 161.

and ok, let's judge ms on his last race too.

twice spinning off and beaten by a rookie and dc in spite of having the superior ferrari and his preferred conditions.

senna and ms a bunch of spinning losers.

[Smooth]

Originally posted by magic
senna and ms a bunch of spinning losers.

[Captain Cranckcase]

I'm just saying its closer than you think. Plus 3 of Sennas poles were done in a Williams and if you look at the Williams between 92 - 94 when Senna died they got 22 poles. So saying that Schumi is crap cause he couldn't get poles when Senna was alive is stupid Senna only got 2 non Williams poles in this period and I believe he was the greatest qualifier of all time. His 15 lotus poles prove that but take away Mclaren at peak and hes left with like 17 poles. And thats abot equal to Schumi Benetton 94-95 Ferrari 96 which were all about as good at the Lotus look at his teamates

94 Verstappen 10 points
95 Herbert 40 something points (mostly because of lucky wins)
96 Irvine 11 points?

Yeah I know this post may be hard to understand my grammar sucks

[Dr.Raj]

Number of poles.
Ayrton-65 (161 starts)
Michael-32 (145 starts)

Number of fastest laps.
Ayrton-19
Michael-41

I thought these two stats would be closely related. Clearly isn't. I would have expected Senna to have a lot more fastest laps.

[Smooth]

Originally posted by Dr.Raj
Number of poles.
Ayrton-65 (161 starts)
Michael-32 (145 starts)

Number of fastest laps.
Ayrton-19
Michael-41

I thought these two stats would be closely related. Clearly isn't. I would have expected Senna to have a lot more fastest laps.

Senna fast on Saturday, leads the race on Sunday

Schumacher fast on Sunday, chasing down the polesitter.

[Sulla]

Cranckcase

Who poled when the Wiliams's didn't in 92-93?

[Dr.Raj]

How many of those 65 poles did Senna win?

[jimm]

here we go again. I really don't know why I get sucked into this when I know that it changes no one's opinion. So I'll make my comments and run

1) everyone knew the '94 williams at the first of the year was crap. Irvine, how had just involved in a terrible accident was more impressed with how fast Senna was driving the williams and how it was all over the place in the corners and it was incredible that senna was even close the the superior Benneton.

2) It is unfair to include the race where Senna died in your stats for race wins. From an objective side (ignoring that it is morbid in the first place) because Senna was no longer alive at the time MS won the race, technically we was no longer an F1 driver and MS's total must be reduced by 1.

3) Hill was not close to Senna in any of the qualifying sessions or in the one race that Senna was in for a significant time (lapped by half way). Not the same as comparing with benneton teammates as Williams runs a 2 car team not like the Brawn/MS way. This shows what a peice of crap the car was at first when driven by a non-legend.

4) Senna's fast lap tally is lower because he only spent 3 races in the pitstop era of F1. Before refueling, you had a heavy car with, sometimes the only set of tires you would have for the whole race. You had to manage the car's resources as you used up the brakes, tires etc. Some approached this like Prost who conserved the car and then used the car when he thought it would be the best time and ended up getting alot of fast laps. Senna drove the car faster for longer were the car did not have the huge peak of speed in the middle of the race to get a fast lap. Additionally, MS got quite a few of his fast laps because he had to pit for tires late in the race so he had a light fuel load with new tires. Before fuel stops, MS's habit of being hard on tires was bad for him. This problem was gone after the cars had to stop for Fuel anyway, meaning that MS could abuse the tires all he wanted. It might be more than happenstance that MS's comming of age coincided with the change to Fuel stops

The fact is that had Senna lived, he would have been faster than Hill as the car improved. considering the fact that Hill was able to run wil MS by mid season and the fact that Senna was a lot more the street fighter, MS's win total for that year would have been reduced. There is a good chance MS could have lost the title by year end.(although he would have gone to MONOCo with a big lead). The next 2 years, the Williams was faster thatn the benneton, MS handled the faultering Hill and DC but I doubt he could have done it to Senna, so it is a good bet that MS's win total and WDC wins would have been reduced by Senn's continued pressence.

On a side note, I think all of use would have prefered not to have to speculate and been able to see these two fight it out. I think it would have been better for MS even if it cost him some stats. I don't think anyone here would argue that MS would have had to up his game a lot more with Senna in. Not only would it have given him a yard stick to compare with but it would have ment that he had to pull more from himself and pushed him further along.

[Sulla]

Smooth

You're right about MS "arriving". But the season, with an assist from the FIA, came down to the last race. I venture to say, at the risk of being pelted, that Senna had the measure of MS and would have been champ that year. Don't know about '95, though. Even Damon was able to bring it to the last race, yes with help from the FIA.

[SanePerson]

1) everyone knew the '94 williams at the first of the year was crap. Irvine, how had just involved in a terrible accident was more impressed with how fast Senna was driving the williams and how it was all over the place in the corners and it was incredible that senna was even close the the superior Benneton.

Sorry, total crap post.

BTW- this "everyone knew" sounds more like "I wish it would be true but it isnt, so I need some stupid phrases to make a point"

[Sulla]

jimm

Thanks for spelling it out

[jimm]

Originally posted by SanePerson


Sorry, total crap post.

BTW- this "everyone knew" sounds more like "I wish it would be true but it isnt, so I need some stupid phrases to make a point"

I'm sorrey, your right , everone who watched the races objectively, or who saw who bad the car was handleing knew. Those who are ignorant or blinded by fan worship probably don't know

[Manson]

Another Schumacher lovefest thread.:yawn:

Now that the racing is on, let's talk about that, not useless stats.

[Simioni]

Well Saneperson, ask Frank Williams, Patrick Head, Damon Hill, Ross Brawn or Michael Schumacher. They all thought benetton was better at least early on, and they *might* know a thing or two more than you.

[Todd]

Originally posted by jimm
2) It is unfair to include the race where Senna died in your stats for race wins. From an objective side (ignoring that it is morbid in the first place) because Senna was no longer alive at the time MS won the race, technically we was no longer an F1 driver and MS's total must be reduced by 1.

This is patent BS. Stats are compared based on participation. Senna started the race. From a career point of view, it was no different from any other race where a driver DNFs due to a crash.

Originally posted by jimm
3) Hill was not close to Senna in any of the qualifying sessions or in the one race that Senna was in for a significant time (lapped by half way). Not the same as comparing with benneton teammates as Williams runs a 2 car team not like the Brawn/MS way. This shows what a peice of crap the car was at first when driven by a non-legend.

The Williams two car myth is quaint. As Williams was struggling with the car, they were very focused on their number one driver to get a good result.

Originally posted by jimm
The fact is that had Senna lived, he would have been faster than Hill as the car improved. considering the fact that Hill was able to run wil MS by mid season and the fact that Senna was a lot more the street fighter, MS's win total for that year would have been reduced.

The Williams big improvement relative to the Benetton was BECAUSE of Senna's death. The FIA used Senna's death as an excuse to take away the Benetton chassis advantage. Its diffuser's effectiveness was undone by the new ride height regulations. The Benetton handled far less well because of this. Williams, on the other hand, was already suffering from this due to their reliance in previous years on active ride. Had Senna not died, the Benetton would have kept its advantage.

[Dr.Raj]

Originally posted by Smooth



Senna fast on Saturday, leads the race on Sunday

Schumacher fast on Sunday, chasing down the polesitter.

True, but Senna was not on pole pole 96 times. I think thats an incentive to put in some fast laps. Only 19?!!!

[jmcgavin]

No sane person, not crap

There were several problems with the 94 Williams in the early part of the season as Adrian Newey pointed out recently at the end of 2000 in Autosport.

They had run active cars longer than most teams and had problems with readjusting to passive suspension, and generally with the aerodynamics and airflow especially under the car which led to it being unstable.

I'll take his word seeing as he designed the car

[MP4/?]

Schumi is not a living legend and sure he never will be.

Senna was a living legend until May 1994 then is a Legend along Clark and Fangio...

[rock]

If Hill, can win the no. of GP's he won in 94,95,96, I can see Senna winning many more, probably taking the championships too (ALL). Those who doubt that either give too much to MS or take a lot from Senna. Or they have'nt seen Senna.

'What would have been' comes in mind when talking about stats. If only you add the no. of GPs Hill won in the Williams car after Senna to Senna's total, you get a hell of a record.

That I say, as I consider Senna to be far better driver than Hill.

[magic]

jimm


-------
True, but Senna was not on pole pole 96 times. I think thats an incentive to put in some fast laps. Only 19?!!!
------

not poling didn't prevent senna to lead.
he was known to pull out secs lead on cold tires after the start.
he was a great starter and even better overtaker.
he still has the the most laps led record, prost and ms breaking laprecords trying to get him, senna cruising by that time.

[Dr.Raj]

Magic, if Senna was ahead of the rest all the time, how come he won only 41 wins.

Also, can you please give me the number of laps led stats. Does Senna dominate that like the pole stats? Just curious.

[Todd]

Originally posted by magic
he still has the the most laps led record

So what? Michael Schumacher has led 5 more of the laps that count, and he has done it in 15 fewer GPs.

[Smooth]

Originally posted by Todd


So what? Michael Schumacher has led 5 more of the laps that count, and he has done it in 15 fewer GPs.

3....2....1..... and here comes one of magic's cut and paste 4-page diatribes!!

[magic]

3....2....1..... and here comes one of magic's cut and paste 4-page diatribes!!
------------------

very funny.

and spot on too.

let me answer first with a quote of another hero of mine,
it has become my motto:

'hit 'm hard, and keep on hitting.'
m.ali, 3xwbc.

'i'll be back'.

[Simioni]

Originally posted by Todd


So what? Michael Schumacher has led 5 more of the laps that count, and he has done it in 15 fewer GPs.

If only Senna had enjoyed Schumacher´s 4 years (and counting) of bullet-proof reliability, who knows what his numbers would be...
;)

[Smooth]

Originally posted by Simioni


If only Senna had enjoyed Schumacher´s 4 years (and counting) of bullet-proof reliability, who knows what his numbers would be...
;)

If only Schumacher had enjoyed the speed of Senna's electronic whiz-bang McLarens for the last few years his numbers would be......;)

[Simioni]

Originally posted by Smooth


If only Schumacher had enjoyed the speed of Senna's electronic whiz-bang McLarens for the last few years his numbers would be......;)

Senna only had them for 1/10 of his career. Everyone else had it, too, and then some. There is some talk though that Schumacher has had it for a while now, and not everyone had it

[Smooth]

Originally posted by Simioni


Senna only had them for 1/10 of his career. Everyone else had it, too, and then some. There is some talk though that Schumacher has had it for a while now, and not everyone had it

And them some?? This is the first year Schumacher has had the dominant machine under him out of the gate, and he isn't forced to play catch-up. What percentage of Senna's wins and pole came in anything but the dominant car? Oh, I will wait for the looming post from magic..... like Ragu....I am sure it will be in there!

[Todd]

Simioni,

There is no getting around the fact that Senna had the right cars from 1988 through 1990. Michael has had a couple years in excellent cars and a number in good cars, but Senna didn't make a habit of looking for challenging cars to drive. He believed that he deserved the best because he was the best. His career wasn't one of overcoming crummy cars to win titles.

[Simioni]

Same old, same old. Senna shared the best car with Prost, the best available opposition, in those 3 years. In the following year he won it without the best car. IMO that is more challenging than what Schumacher has had to deal with with his slight speed disadvantage. Mind you there was no Damon Hill around for Senna to beat with an inferior car.

[Smooth]

Originally posted by Simioni
Mind you there was no Damon Hill around for Senna to beat with an inferior car.

[Turbo]

I know one thing. Without the tragedies of Imola 1994, we would have seen some terrific battles between Senna and Schumacher.

[Smooth]

Originally posted by Turbo
I know one thing. Without the tragedies of Imola 1994, we would have seen some terrific battles between Senna and Schumacher.

Sure would have been nice to have seen a real WDC fight, where the FIA didn't have to drastically tip the scales to make it interesting!

[Todd]

Originally posted by Simioni
Same old, same old. Senna shared the best car with Prost, the best available opposition, in those 3 years. In the following year he won it without the best car.

Senna only shared the cars with Prost during two of those years, and he scored fewer points than Prost both of those years. In 1991, the McLaren-Honda may have still been the best car to have anyway. It is comic that you talk about MS' cars' reliability and then dismiss the '91 McLaren that gave Senna only one DNF. Mansell had 3 mechanical DNFs and a DSQ. That is a bigger relaibility edge than Schumacher ever enjoyed over any of his championship rivals.

[Simioni]

Todd,

Prost had an equal mclaren in those two years and an at least equal ferrari the following year. If the 91 mclaren was the best car to have, then so were Schumacher´s 95 and 2000 rides, both of which had similar pace disadvantage to the top cars but better reliability. Ah and Senna had no Ross Brawn to repeatly steal the lead in the pitstops like Schumacher did all so often in 95.

BTW, Senna had only one terminal DNF in 91 but he twice had fuel reading failure in his car which caused him to stop without fuel in the last lap in Silverstone and Hockenheim, dropping him down the order. Schumacher was 3 to 1 in 95 and 2000, how´s that a smaller reliability edge?

Turbo,

Absolutely, There´s no doubt that Schumacher is Senna´s match in pretty much every department, with a few strenghs of his own. We would see then what we haven´t seen so far, how Schumacher would handle a driver with equal skills battling it out with him. It would be a joy to watch I´m sure, and we were all robbed of it.

[Todd]

Originally posted by Simioni
Todd,

Prost had an equal mclaren in those two years and an at least equal ferrari the following year. If the 91 mclaren was the best car to have, then so were Schumacher´s 95 and 2000 rides, both of which had similar pace disadvantage to the top cars but better reliability. Ah and Senna had no Ross Brawn to repeatly steal the lead in the pitstops like Schumacher did all so often in 95.

BTW, Senna had only one terminal DNF in 91 but he twice had fuel reading failure in his car which caused him to stop without fuel in the last lap in Silverstone and Hockenheim, dropping him down the order. Schumacher was 3 to 1 in 95 and 2000, how´s that a smaller reliability edge?

In 2000, Schumacher suffered two complete mechanical DNFs and 1 botched pitstop/flat tire that cost him points paying positions. That is not 3 to 1. It is 3 to 2 plus another problem similar to what caused Senna's one non-points finish in 1991.

In 1995, Damon Hill had two mechanical DNFs while MS had an engine failure that kept him 4 laps short of completing the Hungary GP.

In other words, you are wrong. Senna: 1 to 3 Schumacher 1 to 2 and 2 to 3.

As to "stealing the lead in pitstops," that is the result of the rule change. Senna didn't pass anyone in 1994, but why don't you think he could have adapted to the new rules?

[Simioni]

Todd,

In 95 Hill had gearbox, gearbox and wheel bearing failure in Brazil, Canada and Germany respectively. That´s 3. You´re right about 2000 though, I forgot about Monaco.

As for taking the lead in pitstops, I have no doubts about Schumacher´s qualities in stint races, but he still needs someone to work out the plan for him and he has the best strategist in his side. Had Ross Brawn been with williams rather than benetton in 95, do you have any doubts that Schumacher would have won less than 9 races?

[Todd]

Simioni,

I suspect Damon's wheel bearings were not the problem. Didn't Schumacher comment on the oil in the corner where Damon's wheel bearing failed?

If Ross Brawn were at Williams in 1995, then where would Adrian Newey have been? They use the same title, don't you know? Ross Brawn could have taught the Williams boys how to change tires and when, but Damon Hill would have been fighting for an occasional point without Newey. Ross Brawn and Rory Byrne combined with Renault were enough for Jean Alesi and Gerhard Berger to win 0 races in 1996. Strategy is nice, but you need a driver that can execute it. Eddie and Johnny showed that you can win with Brawn and Byrne when all the faster cars drop out. Only Schumacher has beaten the Newey penned cars with any consistency.

[RedFever]

"1.senna legend didn't start in imola'94 but monaco '84. "

I always asked myself why, since there was a dude driving faster than him and catching him. I guess it was the Prost Syndrome Factor, he was catching the leader, so most decided to overlook the fact a German driver was catching both Prost and Senna.......unfortunately, he died the following year at eau Rouge, so he couldn't bless us with his incredible talent and he is now a footnote in F1's history.