35 replies to this topic

[glorius&victorius]

Once I read somewhere that Senna described driving for Ferrari as a "forbidden love". To me this indicated he must have wanted to drive for Ferrari, but the conditions were never right. I understand that he was always looking for the winningest car at any moment. But still I would like to know how he felt towards the idea of driving for Ferarri. Does anyone have more personal quotes of Senna on this. Maybe some views of Enzo in this one. Has the great man never approached this genius driver? Senna was, as he admitted himself, partly from Italian descendent (as soo many Brazilians), so as much as racing was in his blood, some Italian was in his blood too.

[Nathan]

Senna always wanted to drive the best car he could. Ferrari at the time wasnt even close to doing so. Thats why people were amazed Schuey went there in 96.

[Frans]

1992

Ayrton's chances of winning the championship were gone by mid August, and Ayrton was thinking of the bigger picture. Honda were thinking of pulling out of F1, so Senna had talks to Ferrari, but his heart was set on Williams. After several fruitful discussions, Frank told Senna that his fee was too high. Ayrton responded with typical boldness: he offered to drive for Williams in 1993 for nothing!

I hope this helps... he had talks with Ferrari only in 1992. But his heart....................

I dunno, Senna didn't had anything particular Italian inside of him, nor it pulled at him, remember Prost talking about the fine kind of "politics" they used to ran they're Ferrari team back then.

they were wicked all way back then! Just IMAGINE!

[Breadmaster]

There was a thread about this a few months ago........needless to say it got bogged down with "what if" but a search should find it.......

[Ferrari_F1_fan_2001]

Senna said that "Ferrari is the heart , soul and passion of motor racing" or something very similar once, on the day of his death (or afew days before) he told his girlfriend Adrianne that very same thing and wanted to end his career at Ferrari, i think he definatly would have gone to Ferrari if it was as strong as Mclaren back then without a doubt, but it wasnt, and winning was everything to Ayrton so he didnt go there,

[magic]

when ms signed for ferrari they were on their way up, benneton already going down.
the rats leave a sinking ship first.

[TT6]

Originally posted by magic
the rats leave a sinking ship first.

Rat is an intelligent creature.

[Clatter]

Originally posted by TT6


Rat is an intelligent creature.

They also carry a lot of diseases ;)

[mikedeering]

I recall a quote bu Enzo - apparently he and Ayrton had discussions in the mid/late 1980s (I think before he went to McLaren - maybe 1986 or 1987).

Enzo said he would have been embarrassed to ask Marlboro for the sort of money Senna was demanding!

Which makes you wonder what the old man would make of Schuey's pay packet! Enzo was always of the opinion that you drove for Ferrari for the honour of it, not for financial reward!

[Vunz]

So Senna went to Williams to be in a winning team, the sad thing is he never won in the Williams

[HP]

Originally posted by Clatter


They also carry a lot of diseases ;)

But they don't get sick themselves

[magic]

Enzo said he would have been embarrassed to ask Marlboro for the sort of money Senna was demanding!

40.000.000 $ ?

[Todd]

Originally posted by magic
when ms signed for ferrari they were on their way up, benneton already going down.
the rats leave a sinking ship first.

How were Benetton on their way down prior to Michael signing with Ferrari?

[chooch]

Well, look what little Alesi could do with the Benneton in 96. They were on their way down. And ALesi was markedly superior in teh Ferrari 95 than Boome in 96 even without the help..

[Todd]

Originally posted by chooch
Well, look what little Alesi could do with the Benneton in 96. They were on their way down. And ALesi was markedly superior in teh Ferrari 95 than Boome in 96 even without the help..

You must have no self respect at all. The B195 started the '95 season as a difficult car, but it took Alesi ramming MS to keep him from running the table once the championship was clinched. The technical team stayed in place and was still improving in their ability to work with the Renault V10s, which the team had a contract to use for two additional seasons. You can pretend that the cars didn't turn out as good in '96, but the team was in great shape when MS signed for Ferrari. Claiming that Alesi was better in the '95 Ferrari is the mark of an ignoramous too. How do you quantify this marked superiority? His podium theatrics when he inherited the only win of his career? His ability to make it into highlight reels with his crashes?

[No27]

It wasn't Senna but Enzo Ferrari himself who called Senna a forbidden love, somewhere around 1987. Instead of Senna they took Prost. Or did they took Mansell first? Anyway, Senna has said at one point that he wanted to move to Ferrari after his Williams contract.

[Foxbat]

Originally posted by mikedeering

Which makes you wonder what the old man would make of Schuey's pay packet!

He would no doubt bitch and moan, but he would probably agree (Marlboro is footing most of the bill after all). And in Schumi's case it was Weber who set up the deal with Marlboro so no need for Enzo to ask them ;)

[Ricardo F1]

In truth Senna probably never drove for Ferrari because he died at Imola in 1994. Who knows but it might well have been Senna and not Schumacher being waved at by the tifosi in 1996 had it not been for that, it was pretty common knowledge that Senna wanted to drive for Ferrari before the end of his career.

[Peeko]

Originally posted by Ricardo F1
t was pretty common knowledge that Senna wanted to drive for Ferrari before the end of his career.

Don't tell senninha, it'll break his heart.

[senninha]

Originally posted by Peeko

Don't tell senninha, it'll break his heart.

Senna was smart, just to makes tifosis happy and let them dream.

In fact, i can´t see Senna outside british teams. He was created there.

[Scudetto]

Actually, I think Senna was "created" in Brazil.

[holiday]

Honda were thinking of pulling out of F1, so Senna had talks to Ferrari, but his heart was set on Williams.

The opposite was the case. Senna's heart was for the Scuderia, but reason told him Williams.
But I agree with posters above, it's pointless to discuss this topic....on readers comment even more so.



BTW I found a disturbing paradox in the post mortem exegesis forwarded by Senna groupies.
On the one hand they claim Senna would have ended up his career with 7 world titles, 70 GPs vics, 100 poles (whatever), but on the other hand they equally claim that Senna would have finished his career at Ferrari.

Given that the only hint about Senna's possible success is - apart from lively imagination - the class of the Willams, that is the car, there is the slight problem of explaining Senna winning dozens of GPS vics in a tank like the midnineties Ferrari. Well, certainly you can now claim that AS would have repeated MS' success at Ferrari as you can claim anything you like because proof isn't there anyway, but provided even that the scenario needs some more explanation.


Somebody could help out?

[Simioni]

Originally posted by holiday

Somebody could help out?

I dont think there are any shrinks in the house.

Originally posted by Todd

How were Benetton on their way down prior to Michael signing with Ferrari?

Benetton fielded a chassis in 94 that was so good that even a V8 couldnt hold them back from dominating all but 2 dry races in which the FIA didn't intervene. In 95 they showcased that they were no williams in terms of keeping up with the rule changes, so much so that the excellent car of 94 turned into a quick but twitchy beast, even though now there were now Renault V10s powering the cars along. Schumacher did win 9 races and collected the championship easily, but after scoring only 4 poles he probably realized that it wasn't wise to count on williams remaining oblivious to the importance of pit strategy or to Damon Hill's mediocrity for much longer. Meanwhile, ferrari who had been abysmal for a couple of years pre-93 showed considerable progress in the second half of 93, not by coincidence after Jean Todt came onboard. The following year they progressed into becoming hot favorites in the power circuits and a solid third overall. In 95 they had one of the best chassis in the business, and were potential winners in a variety of circuits even though they only ended up winning once. I dont think MS expected to be in better position already in the following year but John Barnard completely losing the plot surely wasn't in anyone's schedule. Before that, the idea of a chassis as competitive as the 412T2 without the disadvantages of the V12 engine meant that ferrari's prospects weren't too shabby at all. To proclaim MS went to ferrari as in an adventurous and heroic trip into the wilderness is the kind of exagerated glorification that fans are getting sick of these days, at least those that dont have a Schumacher poster up in their bedroom wall.

[Todd]

Originally posted by Simioni
Benetton fielded a chassis in 94 that was so good that even a V8 couldnt hold them back from dominating all but 2 dry races in which the FIA didn't intervene. In 95 they showcased that they were no williams in terms of keeping up with the rule changes, so much so that the excellent car of 94 turned into a quick but twitchy beast, even though now there were now Renault V10s powering the cars along.

It is true that Williams had much more money to focus on adapting to rule changes, but Benetton was the team that did the best job of fielding a car for the 1994 rule change, which was the biggest set of rule changes for a chassis since the banning of ground effects. Did Williams do better with the mid season rule changes of 1994 and their 2nd phase for '95? Sure, but they were probably made with Patrick Head's input to his buddy Charlie Whiting. Ferrari may have been showing moments of promise in '95, but that is a far sight from Benetton's position that year. Adapting to V10s had ruined the Benetton's balance, but surely they would have expected an improvement on that front with the benefit of a season's experience. They only got more competitive as the season went on. Michael didn't even want to leave anyway. He wanted to stay and accumulate titles. Weber is most likely the one that determined Michael needed a new challenge(in the form of Weber getting a percentage of $25 million a year instead of the fraction of that which Benetton could afford). Steve Matchette has talked about witnessing Michael's crestfallen response to learning that he was leaving the team that he could win the '96 and '97 titles for.

[AndreasF1]

According to Roberto Boccafoglis book "Ferrrari Century" almost joined Ferrari for the 1991 season. Here is an excerpt of the book:

page 146 -
We have already spoken of how Fiorio in 1990 had convinced Ayrton to go to Maranello the next season. Perhaps only a top-secret test with the scarlet cars convinced the driver of the technical validity of the project, as suggested by a number of sources. And perhaps - as suggested by other rumours at the time - after not putting Senna alongside his "enemy" Prost, but at the side of Mansell, leaving Alain free to move at the end of the 1990 championship. The arrangement was never conlcuded, as already mentioned, above all due to the opposition of Prost, who was supported by the then-president of Ferrari, Fusaro. When Luca di Montezemolo found himself having to deal with the question of Senna in 1992, his postioon was perfect: No one either in Ferrari or Fiat, could interfere in the plan.

We all know that the 1992 Ferrari was very uncompetitive thus forcing Senna to shelve his Ferrari plans for a different date. The question I like to know if a Ferrari test ever took place. Be very interesting to see a picture of Senna in a Ferrari.

[Simioni]

Originally posted by Todd


It is true that Williams had much more money to focus on adapting to rule changes, but Benetton was the team that did the best job of fielding a car for the 1994 rule change, which was the biggest set of rule changes for a chassis since the banning of ground effects. Did Williams do better with the mid season rule changes of 1994 and their 2nd phase for '95? Sure, but they were probably made with Patrick Head's input to his buddy Charlie Whiting. Ferrari may have been showing moments of promise in '95, but that is a far sight from Benetton's position that year. Adapting to V10s had ruined the Benetton's balance, but surely they would have expected an improvement on that front with the benefit of a season's experience. They only got more competitive as the season went on. Michael didn't even want to leave anyway. He wanted to stay and accumulate titles. Weber is most likely the one that determined Michael needed a new challenge(in the form of Weber getting a percentage of $25 million a year instead of the fraction of that which Benetton could afford). Steve Matchette has talked about witnessing Michael's crestfallen response to learning that he was leaving the team that he could win the '96 and '97 titles for.

The the rule changing of 95 was far more dramatic to the chassis than the 94 one had been. In 94, only electronics and active components had been banned, and according to yourself benetton never went far down that route to begin with. In 95, there were radical changes to front and rear wing measures as well as many other minor changes which implicated an overall loss of 25% of downforce from the previous year. The engine displacement reduction to 3 liters also implicated a shorter chassis. That caused laptimes to drop several seconds from the previous year, while the 94 cars were just a few tenths slower than the active cars of 93, that until further changes came into play midseason.

I also disagree that benetton got more competitive in 95 as the season went on. After the first few fly-away rounds Schumacher and benetton dominated a few races (actually getting a 1-2 in Barcelona which ironically is the most demanding on aerodynamics and chassis balance), but from France onwards MS scored only one pole, in Suzuka. The races came to him in the pitstops, while Hill and DC did their thing. As for ferrari, didn't Schumacher say that he could have won the championship with the 412T2? Sounded a bit chauvinistic given the car's reliability in comparison to the b195 but I'm sure he could've scored more than 4 poles with it.

[Todd]

Originally posted by Simioni
The the rule changing of 95 was far more dramatic to the chassis than the 94 one had been. In 94, only electronics and active components had been banned, and according to yourself benetton never went far down that route to begin with.

Active ride had huge spill over influences on chassis design. By controlling the ride height and minimizing pitch sensitivity, the designers could build a car that produced MUCH more of its downforce with the rear diffuser, working in concert with the flat bottom of the car. Ride heights were much lower, and the diffusers were much more effective. The overall loss would be dictated by the freedom to increase the wing's effectiveness, but the philosophy had to change quite a bit. Just as big a change in design objective would be the refueling legality. The cars were no longer rolling tankers, and the smaller volume meant greater freedom in managing air between the front and rear wings.

Originally posted by Simioni
In 95, there were radical changes to front and rear wing measures as well as many other minor changes which implicated an overall loss of 25% of downforce from the previous year. The engine displacement reduction to 3 liters also implicated a shorter chassis. That caused laptimes to drop several seconds from the previous year, while the 94 cars were just a few tenths slower than the active cars of 93, that until further changes came into play midseason.

Why do you think that the 3 liter dictated a shorter chassis? The bores of the cylinders probably didn't change much, as the engineers looked to higher revs to compensate for lost displacement, so the engines were about the same length. Refueling was already in place, so the fuel tanks were sized for strategic reasons, and they probably didn't get meaningfully smaller with the '95 engine. Anyway, which was the bigger rule change is a matter of opinion. I suppose we could look for answers from Rory and Adrian, as they seemed to be the most effective at dealing with them.

Originally posted by Simioni
I also disagree that benetton got more competitive in 95 as the season went on. After the first few fly-away rounds Schumacher and benetton dominated a few races (actually getting a 1-2 in Barcelona which ironically is the most demanding on aerodynamics and chassis balance), but from France onwards MS scored only one pole, in Suzuka. The races came to him in the pitstops, while Hill and DC did their thing. As for ferrari, didn't Schumacher say that he could have won the championship with the 412T2? Sounded a bit chauvinistic given the car's reliability in comparison to the b195 but I'm sure he could've scored more than 4 poles with it.

You don't think that the B195 got more competitive as the season went on? He won 3 races in a row going into the finale, and he would have probably had a shot at that, but Alesi Alesi'd and crashed into him. If you are concerned with all those 2nd row starts, I think you are incorrect about the reason. Michael was pushed off the front row when David Coulthard found his legs. The Williams was always much better over a single lap, but DC wasn't taking advantage of it. The gap between Michael and Damon was about the same, but DC went from being very shaky to being faster than Damon during the course of the season. Michael didn't have the races come to him in the pits. He won by stringing together more laps at maximum intensity than the Williams drivers could.

Schumacher did say that he could have won in the 412T2, which was perhaps a bit too obnoxious. On the other hand, he had just gotten out of a car so treacherous that few drivers could keep it on the road. I'm sure that the 412T2 seemed like a trip into the future of automobility after a season in a car that was always trying to turn around on you.

[Simioni]

Originally posted by Todd


Active ride had huge spill over influences on chassis design. By controlling the ride height and minimizing pitch sensitivity, the designers could build a car that produced MUCH more of its downforce with the rear diffuser, working in concert with the flat bottom of the car. Ride heights were much lower, and the diffusers were much more effective. The overall loss would be dictated by the freedom to increase the wing's effectiveness, but the philosophy had to change quite a bit. Just as big a change in design objective would be the refueling legality. The cars were no longer rolling tankers, and the smaller volume meant greater freedom in managing air between the front and rear wings.

Why do you think that the 3 liter dictated a shorter chassis? The bores of the cylinders probably didn't change much, as the engineers looked to higher revs to compensate for lost displacement, so the engines were about the same length. Refueling was already in place, so the fuel tanks were sized for strategic reasons, and they probably didn't get meaningfully smaller with the '95 engine. Anyway, which was the bigger rule change is a matter of opinion. I suppose we could look for answers from Rory and Adrian, as they seemed to be the most effective at dealing with them.

I think a lot of the influence from the rule changes can be observed by the designers' need for new solutions. In 94 the teams fielded cars that from the outside looked like carbon copies of their 93 units, with very few exceptions. Such thing usually only happens when the rules remain stable. What you say about active cars is true though, and it also could explain a bit why williams and mclaren who had the most technologically advanced cars in 93 were the ones to suffer more in 94 by seemingly being too conservative with their new passive designs. The 95 rule change though produced far more radical designs for pretty much all the teams, and the effect on the running order was far more dramatic.

Originally posted by Todd

You don't think that the B195 got more competitive as the season went on? He won 3 races in a row going into the finale, and he would have probably had a shot at that, but Alesi Alesi'd and crashed into him. If you are concerned with all those 2nd row starts, I think you are incorrect about the reason. Michael was pushed off the front row when David Coulthard found his legs. The Williams was always much better over a single lap, but DC wasn't taking advantage of it. The gap between Michael and Damon was about the same, but DC went from being very shaky to being faster than Damon during the course of the season. Michael didn't have the races come to him in the pits. He won by stringing together more laps at maximum intensity than the Williams drivers could.

Take a closer look at the last 7 races. In the dry at Spa, DC looked unbeatable until he retired. At Monza, both DC and Berger looked pretty solid ahead before Hill crashed MS out. In Estoril, MS had a trouble-free race but couldn't touch DC. At the nurburgring, Hill was all over MS for all of the first third of the race, and would have disposed of Alesi much earlier if he hadn't messed up as per usual. In Aida, williams and DC got typically outsmarted by Brawn and MS. Suzuka was wet for most of the weekend, and though MS poled and led from the start Alesi looked pretty threatening until he retired. In adelaide MS might've had an outside chance, but only considering that DC had already thrown the car into the pitwall. I understand that MS and benetton worked more towards having the car ready for the race throughout the weekend, but even so they hardly if ever had the quickest car on race day. The pitiful opposition though made a good job on insuring that every other race went benetton's way.

[Todd]

Originally posted by Simioni
I think a lot of the influence from the rule changes can be observed by the designers' need for new solutions. In 94 the teams fielded cars that from the outside looked like carbon copies of their 93 units, with very few exceptions. Such thing usually only happens when the rules remain stable. What you say about active cars is true though, and it also could explain a bit why williams and mclaren who had the most technologically advanced cars in 93 were the ones to suffer more in 94 by seemingly being too conservative with their new passive designs. The 95 rule change though produced far more radical designs for pretty much all the teams, and the effect on the running order was far more dramatic.

Adrian Newey admitted that the '95 Williams was indeed inspired by the '94 Benetton. It wasn't that the '95 rules required new ideas, it was that Byrne had better ideas for the '94 rules and Williams had the freedom to copy them for '95. I really think that the '95 Benetton's handling problems were as much the result of hastily adapting to a V10 for the first time as they were from the reductions in available grip.

Originally posted by Simioni
Take a closer look at the last 7 races. In the dry at Spa, DC looked unbeatable until he retired. At Monza, both DC and Berger looked pretty solid ahead before Hill crashed MS out. In Estoril, MS had a trouble-free race but couldn't touch DC. At the nurburgring, Hill was all over MS for all of the first third of the race, and would have disposed of Alesi much earlier if he hadn't messed up as per usual. In Aida, williams and DC got typically outsmarted by Brawn and MS. Suzuka was wet for most of the weekend, and though MS poled and led from the start Alesi looked pretty threatening until he retired. In adelaide MS might've had an outside chance, but only considering that DC had already thrown the car into the pitwall. I understand that MS and benetton worked more towards having the car ready for the race throughout the weekend, but even so they hardly if ever had the quickest car on race day. The pitiful opposition though made a good job on insuring that every other race went benetton's way.

Fair enough, but it wasn't like Michael had things his own way early in the season. It didn't seem like a change in form to me, it seemed more like the difference was that there were two Williams late in the season, and the 2nd one was being driven faster than the first one had been earlier.

[magic]

williams had been experimenting active rides already in '86, and switched to full active cars 100% when newey came on board in '90. the fw14 was designed for active suspension. so since the first race of '91 till the last race of '93 williams were used to ultrastable and constant aero. switching back to the good old dampers, ruined newey finetuned aero. for the first time newey's aero ruined the handling of the williams, instead of making it unbeatable.

benneton on the other hand were the last of the toprunners to switch to the active camp and had build pretty effective conservative cars till beginning '93. they had 2 years advantage when the new regs were introduced.

hence the dissapointing seasonstart of williams, they messed up rideheights and were still finding a way to get the aero working again. benneton had the flying start, the car, the engine and the aero, the package was just right.
extra competetivity in races came from sneaky fuelfilter-removals, shorthening the length of pitstops and later secret launch-control software was discovered.

[glorius&victorius]

Please people!! Why is it so hard not to deviate from the original question if this thread....

I've seen some really good replies and some others suggesting that I am trying to keep the "what-if's" scenarios alive....
Go back to my first post of this thread and read the question again. I am not asking what would have happened with Senna if this and if that....
The only thing I am asking is whether there is more info on Senna's view about him joining the maranello squad. Either info from his quotes, other people around by that time. I did not ask for polluting info about Benettons and Williams designs. And if this info about Bennetons and Williamses technology is giving an answer on the original question, then make the point or start your own thread.....PLEEEEASE!!

Anyway, thanks to those who really contribute with the good stuff!!

[RedFever]

Why did Senna never drive for Ferrari?

1) Senna always did all he could to drive only with the best possible car. Ferrari was in its lowest period when Senna was at his top. However it was his dream to be a winner with a Ferrari, as he confessed to his girlfriend and family.

2) Just when it looked like Montezemolo and Ayrton could find an agreement for 95 or 96, Ayrton died. End of story. Schumacher became the next target for Luca. The rest is history.

PS> Come to think of it, now Senna could have 5-6 titles, he certainly didn't need to learn from Schumi how to be cunning.....

[glorius&victorius]

Originally posted by RedFever
Why did Senna never drive for Ferrari?

2) Just when it looked like Montezemolo and Ayrton could find an agreement for 95 or 96, Ayrton died. End of story. Schumacher became the next target for Luca. The rest is history.

I've followed his career from 92 onwards, but never heard he was talking to Luca about 95/96. Actually I did not even know the name Montezemolo...but then again already in 94 the signs were there that Ferrari was getting stronger, more reliable...thanks Redfever. Wish you could give more details on this 95/96 discussions

[LuckyStrike1]

Originally posted by Nathan
Senna always wanted to drive the best car he could. Ferrari at the time wasnt even close to doing so. Thats why people were amazed Schuey went there in 96.

Add the loads of millions he got for going there and you wouldn't be too amazed

[CONOSUR]

As others have stated, Senna would only accept a ride from the team capable of winning the championship. After seeing what they did to Prost, and what Prost did with the Williams, he went to Williams.

For Senna to have gone to Ferrari, he would have had to have 5 titles already in hand, or Ferrari would have had to have been winning titles. As long as Ferrari were unreliable, Senna wasn't willing to waste his years improving a poor horse.

[senninha]

Originally posted by CONOSUR
As others have stated, Senna would only accept a ride from the team capable of winning the championship. After seeing what they did to Prost, and what Prost did with the Williams, he went to Williams.

For Senna to have gone to Ferrari, he would have had to have 5 titles already in hand, or Ferrari would have had to have been winning titles. As long as Ferrari were unreliable, Senna wasn't willing to waste his years improving a poor horse.

1 - In fact, Senna would like to go to Williams since MANSELL'S performance in 92 but Prost vetoed him;

2 - As some poster stated here: Senna's heart was with Williams. Frank gave Senna his first chance in F1. Senna always kept it with him as a good moment. Sorry, tifisos, but Senna liked Williams more than Ferrari. Unfortunally he died driving for Frank.