That's why all these pouring tributes for senna leave a bitter taste of unfairness in my mouth.
I don't think we should turn this thread into a p***ing contest ...
As many have already said, the reason why Roland isn't forgotten (although we're often told otherwise) is because of his link to Senna.
And to the same tune, I think the reason why Senna's death is still at the very forefront of F1 is because he died
the very next day. Two deaths in two days. During the same Grand Prix. Unfathomable and unprecedented.
You cannot separate one from the other, hence why we have the thread title "Imola 1994". I think it's fair to say we are commemorating
the defining weekend in F1 history, and Senna is the headline.
One of the most bizarre things for me to comprehend is that both of them died just... crashing. Heck, de Angelis' rear wing fell off, Gilles was flung from the cockpit and most recently Bianchi hit a digger. I wish not to trivialise any death, and I understand completely that there is always a cause, but Roland and Ayrton crashed just like anybody else.
I will again expose my youth... I can only assume that the older audiences will make a clear distinction "F1 before" and "F1 after" ...
I often try and imagine Senna superimposed onto the grid when watching 'historic' clips from the late 1990s. It isn't unreasonable to say he could've been there in Jerez 1997, or Spa 1998, but somehow it just doesn't work. He doesn't fit. It was the end of an era. "What era?" is totally down to your own interpretation of Formula 1.
For me, it was the mystique. Racing from another universe.