333 replies to this topic

[Vrba]

Here are the facts. It's a very simple question - Michael beat reigning World Champion on points in his first full year in the championship. Did he do a better job than Ayrton?

Senna, reigning champion:
McLaren-Honda, reigning champions
3 wins
7 podiums
1 pole
7 non-classifications
50 points
4th place in the championship
9th full year in the championship


Schumacher:
Benetton-Ford
1 win
8 podiums
0 poles
4 non-classifications
53 points
3rd place in the championship
1st full year in the championship

Hrvoje

[Ricardo F1]

Hard to argue. Senna drove better, but then he was highly experienced. Michael was very impressive considering it was his first full season. If you take them driver for driver, car for car, then Senna. When you count in Michael's rookie status then I'd say Michael was more impressive in a way.

How about a tie?

[magic]

autocourse top 10, 1992, as ranked 2

In objective terms, Ayrton Senna certainly drove better in 1992 than at any time during his F1 career and consolidated his reputation as probably the greatest Grand Prix driver of the past decade. For the first time in 5 seasons, he did not have a car capable of setting the pace, but that in no way blunted the cutting edge of his genius.

Despite being temperamentally unsuited to a supporting role, Senna never relented for a second as he strove to keep the Williams FW 14B's in sight. Sometimes he drove too hard. During practice at Mexico City he crashed heavily while trying to make the elderly MP4/6 do the impossible, being fortunate to emerge with no worse than heavily bruised legs. At Imola he so exhausted himself with upper body cramps as he struggled vainly to improve on third place that he was left slumped in the cockpit for almost 20 minutes after the end of the race, arguable a shrewder course of action than Mansell's public display of exhaustion on the rostrum at Monaco.

Senna's first lap passing manouevres could be awesome: at Monaco, an incrediblly audacious move on Patrese going into the first corner ensured he was ideally placed to sieze the lead when Mansell stopped. At Hockenheim, Budapest and Monza, he also ran quicly enough to keep the Williams drivers on their toes from the start, while at Estoril Ayrton demonstrated a stoicism through 4 tyre stops which perhaps hadn't been evident when he flounced away from his misfiring McLaren in the pits at Interlagos.

If Senna has anything that can be interpreted as a weakness, it is his inability to accept second best and a monumentally egotistical belief that he should have access to the fastest car at all times, almost by right. It infuriated the Brazillian that Prost had outfumbled him in the task of securing the bestdrive for 1993. Ultimately, however, if Frank Williams chose to volunteer such beneficial terms to the Frenchman then it was really up to the Didcot team owner and, no matter how unfair it may have seemed from the touchlines, was something Ayrton was going to have to live with.

Moreover, his continual criticism of the team, and of other drivers, while out of the cockpit was irksome in the extreme. In particular, his post-race criticism of Alain Prost at Estoril was every bit as unbecoming as Mansell's complaints about the stewards at Adelaide. Surprisingly, both went unpunished by the powers that be.

[BuonoBruttoCattivo]

Originally posted by Ricardo F1
Hard to argue. Senna drove better, but then he was highly experienced. Michael was very impressive considering it was his first full season. If you take them driver for driver, car for car, then Senna. When you count in Michael's rookie status then I'd say Michael was more impressive in a way.

How about a tie?

Good points


But in the whole scheme of things, MS was [a vital element] of the process of making Benetton a future championship team from nothing, something Senna never achieved/did/care about in his career.
So MS did a better job (more impresive) IMO. It goes beyond mere statistics and numbers.

[Simioni]

Originally posted by BuonoBruttoCattivo


Good points


But in the whole scheme of things, MS was vital in the process of making Benetton a championship team from nothing, something Senna never achieved/did/care about in his career.

Yeah, he spent 3 years at lotus just for the fun of it. Too bad none of the top drivers died or retired in those seasons so that Senna could've fulfilled this fundamental quest in any driver's career.

[Vrba]

Originally posted by Simioni


Yeah, he spent 3 years at lotus just for the fun of it. Too bad none of the top drivers died or retired in those seasons so that Senna could've fulfilled this fundamental quest in any driver's career.

He spent three years in Lotus because it was the best seat available at the time. Had he had the chance of joining Williams for 1986, he would undoubtedly have done so. As soon as better drive became available, he left. Just as after 1984 and after 1993.

The fact is that Senna never arrived in a mid-field (or slightly better) team and lifted it to the world championship status. Schumacher did it with Benetton and Ferrari.
Senna didn't lift Lotus to championship status. After that he arrived into McLaren, an established super-team with 5 world titles in the last 4 years and when McLaren's time passed, he left.
Sorry guys, but that is how it was. He never joined a team that never or for a long time haven't won the title and then lifted it.

Hrvoje

[BuonoBruttoCattivo]

Originally posted by Simioni


Yeah, he spent 3 years at lotus just for the fun of it. Too bad none of the top drivers died or retired in those seasons so that Senna could've fulfilled this fundamental quest in any driver's career.

Magic very kindly provides a quote above...

"If Senna has anything that can be interpreted as a weakness, it is his inability to accept second best and a monumentally egotistical belief that he should have access to the fastest car at all times, almost by right. It infuriated the Brazillian that Prost had outfumbled him in the task of securing the bestdrive for 1993."

You can tell me until you are blue in the face, if this, if that, because...

Fact is, MS raised 2 teams from the doldrums to championship status, something Senna didn't do. It is nothing against Senna that he didn't care to do it. Infact, he had all the right to 'demand' the best car. That was his business.
That still doesn't change the fact that I am more impressed w/ achievements such as what MS, Mika, Lauda and others have done to raise (with hard work, loyalty and no-complaining) non-winning teams to championship-winning teams during their presence, not merely 'demanding' or jumping to the best car.

[Simioni]

whatever. I could keep on dissecating your nonsense, but I've wasted enough time for a day

[magic]

lotus before senna: nowhere.
lotus during senna: wdc leading racewinning polemachine.
lotus after senna: nowhere.

senna fought wdc like prost, niki, keke, piquet, noige in superior macs and williamses.
compare that with ms in '94 and '95.
seconddriver hill and rookie dc cannot be compared with piquet and noige.

( before senna died ms had 0 poles and 4 vics in 41 races, only with prost, senna, noige, piquet gone, ms started to win bigtime).

[Vrba]

Originally posted by magic
lotus before senna: nowhere.
lotus during senna: wdc leading racewinning polemachine.
lotus after senna: nowhere.

senna fought wdc like prost, niki, keke, piquet, noige in superior macs and williamses.
compare that with ms in '94 and '95.
seconddriver hill and rookie dc cannot be compared with piquet and noige.

( before senna died ms had 0 poles and 4 vics in 41 races, only with prost, senna, noige, piquet gone, ms started to win bigtime).

Lotus before Senna, immediately before Senna: 3rd in the drivers championship, 3rd in the makes championship. Is that nowhere?!?
Senna simply inherited the good car.

BTW, let's take a look at Senna's first 41 races.....oh, 4 wins!!!!! Much better than Schumacher.

Hrvoje

[Vrba]

Originally posted by Simioni
whatever. I could keep on dissecating your nonsense, but I've wasted enough time for a day

It seems like poll voters don't share your opinion....

Hrvoje

[magic]

senna after 4 years struggling with tolemans, lotusses against those multiwdc in superior cars, proved himself against the best in equal cars.
why should he start all over again proving himself 8 years later in '92, driving shitboxes compared to the neweyactiverenaultwilliamses?
why won't lucky drive a jordan today?

[JPMCrew]

Originally posted by BuonoBruttoCattivo


Magic very kindly provides a quote above...

"If Senna has anything that can be interpreted as a weakness, it is his inability to accept second best and a monumentally egotistical belief that he should have access to the fastest car at all times, almost by right. It infuriated the Brazillian that Prost had outfumbled him in the task of securing the bestdrive for 1993."

You can tell me until you are blue in the face, if this, if that, because...

Fact is, MS raised 2 teams from the doldrums to championship status, something Senna didn't do. It is nothing against Senna that he didn't care to do it. Infact, he had all the right to 'demand' the best car. That was his business.
That still doesn't change the fact that I am more impressed w/ achievements such as what MS, Lauda and others have done to raise non-winning teams to championship-winning teams.

He didn't "raise" those teams, he just happened to be there. He might have provided exceptional feedback, he might have been exceptionally disciplined, etc, etc. That's all great; but the technical superiority of Benetton and Ferrari were achieved by their respective technical teams (which incidentally happen to be very similar to each other). Also, Benetton was far from being in the doldrums in 1992 as demonstrated by the aging Piquet the previous year.

MS deserves all the credit he gets for having helped Ferrari regain the World Championship, but I'd like to see him do the same in a team without Rory Byrne before I give him so much credit for designing the car.

[magic]

lucky spent 1 race in a jordan because it was the best seat available at the time. when he had the chance of joining racewinning benneton for 1992, he undoubtedly did so. As soon as better drive became available, he left. Just as after 1991 and after 1995.

[Simioni]

Originally posted by Vrba

It seems like poll voters don't share your opinion....
Hrvoje

Oh yes, the supreme significance of an atlas poll. Next you'll go to the vatican to find out whether God exists.

And I don't think you know what my opinion is.

[Nikolas Garth]

Originally posted by magic
As soon as better drive became available, he left. Just as after 1991 and after 1995.

MS gave away the 1996 & 1997 WDC's to go to Ferrari.

[Vrba]

Originally posted by Simioni
And I don't think you know what my opinion is.

Why should I care?

Hrvoje

[Jordan191]

Originally posted by Vrba
Here are the facts. It's a very simple question - Michael beat reigning World Champion on points in his first full year in the championship. Did he do a better job than Ayrton?

Senna, reigning champion:
McLaren-Honda, reigning champions
3 wins
7 podiums
1 pole
7 non-classifications
50 points
4th place in the championship
9th full year in the championship


Schumacher:
Benetton-Ford
1 win
8 podiums
0 poles
4 non-classifications
53 points
3rd place in the championship
1st full year in the championship

Hrvoje

personally I think the relative performances are about equal give the relative strengths and weaknesses of each package .. The Michael/B192/Cosworth V8 and the Ayrton/MP4-7/Honda v10
what it does say is that MS does belong in Senna's league even in that early stage of his career.

[Simioni]

Originally posted by Vrba


Why should I care?
Hrvoje

You shouldn't. A reasonable opinion would find your brain to be hostile environment

[magic]

Bruce:

a few comments about the 1992 Benetton vs the 1992 McLaren...

I think that this is particularly germane to this thread, because, although MS did not win a WDC in the 1992 Benetton (in fact he won a single race - his first ever race win) I think that 1992 was the year that his reputation as a driver who could battle in sub-par machinery was spawned.

He finished 3rd in the WDC that year, 3 points behind Patrese and 3 points ahead of Senna. He had one win to Senna's 3.

Schumacher had the benefit of very few people having any really crushing expectations of him... so when he did drop the ball, as he did at Imola and Magny Cours, there was no great let-down - he was still in his first ever full-season and this sort of thing was to be expected. Senna on the other hand was in a Marlboro McLaren, was a triple WDC, had an engine behind him that had won the last 5 drivers WDC and the last 6 CCs. Expectations lay heavy on Senna's shoulders.

The problem was that the Honda engine was no longer the dominant force that it had once been. the rot had started in 1991. Senna won that championship, but it was an hard-fought win that was won by the narrowest margin from Mansell in the Williams Renault. The Honda engine was already in trouble in 1991- I paraphrase from the team profile in the 1992 Autcourse;


quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The problems for the hitherto all conquering McLaren-Honda alliance could be traced back to 1991 when Ayrton Senna reported that the japanese company's new RA12E V12 showed precious few signs of development progress during the off season. Although the engine would power the MP4/6 to the 4th successive WDC, increasing pressure from Williams Renault resulted in Honda having to work frantically to keep ahead in the horsepower race. This inevitably had a knock-on effect on progress with the new Honda RA122E/B V12 engine.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

further;


quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
bSenna drove with the same total commitment as ever (in 1992) but his morale out of the car was progressively worn down by it's unpredictable handling in fast corners. In his assessment, the chassis was the area most responsible for the performance shortfall, but he did confirm the view that the new Honda V12 had scarcely more power than the 1991 engine.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

and further;


quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
the stark disappointment was that the engine (the RA122E/B) initially failed to provide the expected performance. In fact it was not until after Monaco that the engine developed horsepower comparable to the 1991 unit's output.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

and finally;


quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
What one couldn't see from the touchlines, however, was the amount of fuel the MP4/7A's thirsty Honda V12 required at many races. At Silverstone, for example, the two McLarens were the only cars to be topped up on the grid, and Senna's struggle with Martine Brundle's Benetton can be put into sharper perspective by the fact that the Honda engined cars started with 220 litres of fuel on board compard to around 185 litres for the Ford engined car. That represented a weight handicap of around 60 lb in fuel alone
------------------------------------------------------------------------

So the MP4/7A was certainly not the dominant car of the 1992 season, and certainly not akin to the dominant Honda cars of the late 80s.

Reliability; The 1992 Benetton Ford was far more reliable than the MP47/A - Between Berger and Senna, the McLaren failed to finish 13 times - of which 10 non finishes were due to mechanical failures, and of the 3 collisions that ended in non finishes, one was Senna getting mauled by Schumacher in France - something you can hardly blame on Senna. The Benettons by comparison had a total of 9 non finishes of which 4 were collisions (2 for each driver) and 5 were mechanical. Schumacher had a total of 2 mechanical DNF's in 1992, Senna had a total of 5...

So how good or bad was the Bentton Ford? Well, consider this - the B192 finished EVERY race in 1992 in the points... pretty impressive. And this is a stat which is down not only to MS but to his team-mate Brundle... MS finished in the points 11 times, as did Martin Brundle. Schumacher was on the podium 8 times, Brundle, 5. Schumacher finished in the points 5 times when Martin Brundle failed to, and likewise, Brundle finished in the points 5 times when MS failed to. When both cars finsihed, MS finished ahead of Brundle 4 times, MB finished ahead of MS 3 times. I think that Brundle's results suggest that the car was as much or more a reason for Benetton's success that year as MS...

I think that if you look at all of the above, and have a close look at the respective qualities of the Benettton B192 and the McLaren MP4/7A, that you might find it hard to argue that, on the whole, the Benetton was a superior car to the McLaren. Despite having what appeared to be the better car, MS finished just 3 points ahead of Senna and with 2 less wins - and if Schumacher hadn't punted Senna out in France, Senna could posibly have finished ahead of MS in the points in an inferior car.

MS had an impressive season in 1992, especially given that it was only his first full season. To say that he did it all in a car that was inferior to the McLaren is , I think, an error. Because of the 2 teams respective immediate pasts, it is easy to assume that Senna was in the superior car - however an inspection of the events of 1992 and the performance of the cars suggests in fact that the only car that was better than the Benetton was the Williams - which of course was WAAAAY better....

quoting: Simioni

The MP4-7 being a flawed chassis with a poorly developed engines is a fact. "All McLaren had was more power, twice the budget, continuity, and recent success." Me thinks it's you who's playing with pretty irrelevant points in regards to car performance, and when it comes to that mclaren was not in much better shape than benetton, that without adding reliability to the equation. 1992 was a year of collecting crumbles from the williams-renaults, and if you're hampered by 5 mechanical DNF's plus another two unprovoked accidents like Senna was your points total is bound to be unimpressive. Berger's points total was aided by 2 wins that were flukes akin to Johnny Herbert's in 1995 - he was no more impressive than Martin Brundle who scored 38 points despite getting pretty much all of benetton's unreliability.

Not that the fight for 2nd place must've excited Senna too much - the championship was already over by the 5th race of the season. Senna wasn't the driver trying to prove his worth - he was already a 3-time world champion, and in those miserable circunstances he could only gain any satisfaction from individual wins. He got 3 of them against cars that were at the worst of moments 1s faster than his mclaren - not less impressive than Schumacher's 3 wins in his 'magic' 96 season.

So was 1992 a fluke for MS? Look at the following season. Schumacher had more experience, a better engine for over half of the season and better reliability, but still scored 4 wins less than Senna and finished two places behind in the WDC. Circunstances were better for a comparison, but I guess the result was less appealing

quoting Bruce


Firstly, Mclaren did score points in most races, but compound their failure rate to that and Benetton's failure rate to their acheivement of points finishes in every race, and add all that to the fact that MS beat AS in 1992 by a mere 3 points, and suddenly, McLaren's failure to finish in the points twice, and their extra mechanical DNF's seem to be a much bigger deal - In the end i suspect that the McLaren was faster, but more fragile and more difficult to drive - this is why I suspect that Benetton may have marginally had the better car... I think Benetton's minor speed and power deficit in the 1992 season was more than compensated for by the fuel issue (see my previous post) and the reliability of the B192.

Gerhard Berger did indeed have his best ever season inasmuch as he scored more points, although, the extra points saw him finish 5th, whereas with less points in 1989 and 1990 he finished equal third and 4th respectively. However, his excellent year must be put into perspective by noting that Senna had his worst year in terms of points since 1985...and anyone who watched the 1992 season must have realised that this was not through lack of inspiration or motivation (for example, Imola and Monaco...)

GB's year was very good by his standards, but it must be said that, perversely, he benefitted from his own team's unreliability - he won both races he won that year after Senna, (in both cases ahead of him) had failures, and of course both his wins came when the Williams had both been eliminated.... despite this, in Canada he is unlikely to have won if Brundle's Benetton had not died and despite that, Schumacher finished only 12 seconds behind in second. In Adelaide, he won with, of course, Senna and both Williams gone, but he finished a mere 7/10ths of a second in front of MS - I think that this is at least suggestive that the B192 was not at an enormous disadvantage in those 2 races anyway... No, I agree, Nik - Berger did have his best year to that point in 1992 - but the fact that his best points finish ever netted him his worst WDC position since joining McLaren argues that the competition from the other top teams (Benetton and particulary Williams) was intense.

Yes, Berger had been in great cars before, but I think that the fact that he competed as he did in 1992 argues that in fact, the McLaren was a little sub-par - if it were not, Senna would have left him in the dust.... as it was, Berger was deceptively competitive - I say deceptively because when one looks at the season as a whole, GB beat AS on the track only once, by one position in Portugal (although in Spain, Senna led GB most of the race but finished a classified 9th to GB's 4th - another mech dnf for Senna which is not listed in my previous post) - despite only beating Senna once on the track, Berger finished within 1 point of him... I think that this argues that, in fact, GB had the better of the reliability of the McLaren, although, still, His MP4/7As reliability could not compare to that of the B192.



quoting Simioni:

To illustrate the effect of mechanical DNFs:

1992

Senna:

Mexico (likely 3rd place, inherited by MS)

Brazil (likely 3rd place, inherited by MS)

Canada (likely win, MS inherited points)

Silverstone (likely 3rd place, MS inherited points)

Suzuka (likely 2nd place)

Schumacher:

Hungary (likely 3rd/4th place)

Suzuka (likely 3rd/4th place)

[HSJ]

Originally posted by Vrba


He spent three years in Lotus because it was the best seat available at the time. Had he had the chance of joining Williams for 1986, he would undoubtedly have done so. As soon as better drive became available, he left. Just as after 1984 and after 1993.

The fact is that Senna never arrived in a mid-field (or slightly better) team and lifted it to the world championship status. Schumacher did it with Benetton and Ferrari.
Senna didn't lift Lotus to championship status. After that he arrived into McLaren, an established super-team with 5 world titles in the last 4 years and when McLaren's time passed, he left.
Sorry guys, but that is how it was. He never joined a team that never or for a long time haven't won the title and then lifted it.

Hrvoje

I find it amazing that MS time and again pulls nobodies like Brawn and Byrne around him to victories and titles. Senna couldn't have done it.

Right? Can I now get my MS fanclub membership?

[scheivlak]

Originally posted by magic
lotus before senna: nowhere.
lotus during senna: wdc leading racewinning polemachine.
lotus after senna: nowhere.

Bit exaggerated!
Elio de Angelis won races and scored some pole postions in this first "nowhere" period and in Senna's era.... The 1985 car was really competitive, both in Ayrton's and Elio's hands (Elio was a WDC contender in the first half of the season).

[rich42]

Originally posted by magic
lucky spent 1 race in a jordan because it was the best seat available at the time. when he had the chance of joining racewinning benneton for 1992, he undoubtedly did so. As soon as better drive became available, he left. Just as after 1991 and after 1995.

So, magic, let's get this straight. Michael left Benetton, a team with which he'd just won two consecutive drivers' championships and a constructors' championship, to join Ferrari, a team with two wins in the previous 5 years. This is a better drive?

[HSJ]

Originally posted by Jordan191


personally I think the relative performances are about equal give the relative strengths and weaknesses of each package .. The Michael/B192/Cosworth V8 and the Ayrton/MP4-7/Honda v10
what it does say is that MS does belong in Senna's league even in that early stage of his career.

...or that MS cars have been seriously underrated by his fans throughout his career. See how Brundle did against MS, for example. I guess Martin was in Senna's league too.

I don't think there's ever been a driver who's equipment has been so systematically underrated as MS. It is just unbelievable. Apologies to the more level-headed MS fans, they must be just as bewildered as I am.

Perhaps it is because we have never been able to judge MS against real teammates, like we could with AP vs. Lauda or Rosberg, AS vs. AP. So when the legends are not born naturally, they must be made?

[Vrba]

magic,
yes, of course. You did manage to prove that Senna had inferior car in 1992. In fact, now I see that Senna had truly inferior cars in all his seasons, including 1988, 1989, 1990 and 1991. How could I have been so blind?

Hrvoje

[Vrba]

Originally posted by scheivlak


Bit exaggerated!
Elio de Angelis won races and scored some pole postions in this first "nowhere" period and in Senna's era.... The 1985 car was really competitive, both in Ayrton's and Elio's hands (Elio was a WDC contender in the first half of the season).

A big bit. 1984 car was as competitive as 1985 one. And Senna had nothing to do with it.

Hrvoje

[scheivlak]

Originally posted by HSJ

See how Brundle did against MS, for example. I guess Martin was in Senna's league too.

So you really think MS would have crushed Senna 16-0 in qualifying?

[ruther]

Vrba, the man who said "Senna was artificially created" - I'll never forget this phrase.

[JPMCrew]

Originally posted by ruther
Vrba, the man who said "Senna was artificially created" - I'll never forget this phrase.

Yes, I remember that one. He gets cosmic orgasms everytime MS wins a poll in RC

[Vrba]

Originally posted by HSJ


...or that MS cars have been seriously underrated by his fans throughout his career. See how Brundle did against MS, for example. I guess Martin was in Senna's league too.

I don't think there's ever been a driver who's equipment has been so systematically underrated as MS. It is just unbelievable. Apologies to the more level-headed MS fans, they must be just as bewildered as I am.

Perhaps it is because we have never been able to judge MS against real teammates, like we could with AP vs. Lauda or Rosberg, AS vs. AP. So when the legends are not born naturally, they must be made?

I am first to agree that Schumacher enjoyed many good cars during his career. He had victories in inferior cars and the 1995 title was probably achieved in not the very best car in the field. But the fact is that when he had the best car, he invariably won the title.

Hrvoje

[Fastcar]

Senna did miles better he still won races in a very poor car. The only people who put Schumacher before Senna are just current Schumacher lovers afterall its been a long time since Senna to keep his fans Fires lit.
The following year Senna had a customer engine to Schumachers works engine and he still won 5 races and whipped Michaels ass in qualifying and race. Different league I'm afraid, Schumacher is more like Prost than Senna i.e. a thinking calculating driver that gets good results cognitively whilst Senna was always driving sub-consciously. Its like playing the Piano by Ear or by Musical notation, the notes can take you further but the best music comes from the people who just play by Ear having so much more 'Feel'.

I like Schuamcher I really think he's today best driver not just by the results either he drives brilliantly but he wasn't in Senna league unfortunetly.

[Vrba]

Originally posted by ruther
Vrba, the man who said "Senna was artificially created" - I'll never forget this phrase.

I said that Senna myth was artificially created and hugely over-exagerrated after his death and I keep this opinion. His position is largely unjustified.

Hrvoje

[Vrba]

Originally posted by JPMCrew


Yes, I remember that one. He gets cosmic orgasms everytime MS wins a poll in RC

In fact, I very rarely watch poll results. And I'm much more against AS myth than I'm pro-Schumacher.

Hrvoje

[CLX]

You don't care about our answers, you just want to find more (twisted) reasons to praise one driver and demerit the other.

Originally posted by Vrba


Why should I care?

Hrvoje

Having started this poll yourself, it would only be natural that you were looking for opinions and insights.

Or did you start this just to spit more of your "I hate Senna" crap?

[magic]

scheivlak
quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by magic
lotus before senna: nowhere.
lotus during senna: wdc leading racewinning polemachine.
lotus after senna: nowhere.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bit exaggerated!
Elio de Angelis won races and scored some pole postions in this first "nowhere" period and in Senna's era.... The 1985 car was really competitive, both in Ayrton's and Elio's hands (Elio was a WDC contender in the first half of the season).

lotus down/up/down. the senna factor:

before (elio/noige) : 84,

0 vics, 1 pole, 0 fastest lap

during (senna/elio) : 85,

3 vics, 8 poles, 3 fastest laps ( elio 1 vic, 1 pole)

after (piquet/nakajap/) : 88,

0 vics, 0 poles, 0 fastest laps

[Vrba]

Originally posted by magic


lotus down/up/down. the senna factor:

before (elio/noige) : 84,

0 vics, 1 pole, 0 fastest lap

during (senna/elio) : 85,

3 vics, 8 poles, 3 fastest laps ( elio 1 vic, 1 pole)

after (piquet/nakajap/) : 88,

0 vics, 0 poles, 0 fastest laps

Are you the same magic that always plays down the importance of statistics?
Well, had McLaren not dominated in 1984 like they did, there will be quite a number of victories for Lotus. And, had McLaren dominated in 1985 like they did in 1984, Senna would have waited more for his first victory.

Hrvoje

[Just me]

Originally posted by HSJ


...or that MS cars have been seriously underrated by his fans throughout his career. See how Brundle did against MS, for example. I guess Martin was in Senna's league too.

Talk about twisting the facts(or looking at just a part of them) Schumacher was beaten only 3 times by Brundle in 1992-twice when they finished together and in Canada when Martin retired while ahead(i am not counting Portugal because Schumacher had to start from last and had a troublesome race after).Every other time Schumacher was the best Benetton when either one of them retired.

Yeah,Martin was in Senna's league

[Claudius]

Originally posted by HSJ


...or that MS cars have been seriously underrated by his fans throughout his career. See how Brundle did against MS, for example. I guess Martin was in Senna's league too.

I don't think there's ever been a driver who's equipment has been so systematically underrated as MS. It is just unbelievable. Apologies to the more level-headed MS fans, they must be just as bewildered as I am.

Perhaps it is because we have never been able to judge MS against real teammates, like we could with AP vs. Lauda or Rosberg, AS vs. AP. So when the legends are not born naturally, they must be made?

No

I believe that it's fans like you, who'll do anything to belittle MS achievments, that constantly try and overestimate his equipment...
(and BTW, I don't remember Brundle winning, or being ahead of Senna at the end of the championship)

[POLAR]

I really dont give a flying to numbers. Michael is veeery good, but Senna was way better than him, as Giles and Ronnie Peterson. Michael stands on a very honorable #4.

Polar

[scheivlak]

Originally posted by Just me



Talk about twisting the facts(or looking at just a part of them) Schumacher was beaten only 3 times by Brundle in 1992-twice when they finished together and in Canada when Martin retired while ahead(i am not counting Portugal because Schumacher had to start from last and had a troublesome race after).

Add the Italy result to that - MS finished just 7 seconds behind Martin after he had to pit after lap 1 because of a collision with Boutsen (result of a characteristic bad start BTW!) and had to rejoin the race dead last. Gradually climbed up the field to finish 3rd.

[BuonoBruttoCattivo]

Originally posted by CLX
You don't care about our answers, you just want to find more (twisted) reasons to praise one driver and demerit the other.



Having started this poll yourself, it would only be natural that you were looking for opinions and insights.

Or did you start this just to spit more of your "I hate Senna" crap?

Nobody is spitting anti-Senna crap.
I saw nearly every race Senna competed in growing up, and the guy was phenomenal, especially over one lap, he was untouchable...
But in my opinion, I rate more highly a driver (whether its MS or not is not the point, but the poll is about MS-AS here) accepting the challenge of racing for a not-competitive team and helping it succeed than merely winning championships in already blistering fast cars. Its the challenge and task at hand undertaken which I rate higher. That is just my opinion ofcoarse.

Ofcoarse as a Ferrari fan to to the death, MS's similar contribution is equally appreciated, but in this case i am more referring to Benetton years than Ferrari years.

I would have liked Senna to drive for Ferrari, but he wasn't interested at that point. Ferrari wasn't good enough for him obviously...

[BuonoBruttoCattivo]

Originally posted by JPMCrew


MS deserves all the credit he gets for having helped Ferrari regain the World Championship, but I'd like to see him do the same in a team without Rory Byrne before I give him so much credit for designing the car.

Yeah, but we have to be careful here...
Do we diminish Mika's WCs because he was w/ Newey.
Do we diminish Senna because he was in a Barnard?
Do we diminish JV and DH.....ok, skip that....

[Ricardo F1]

Originally posted by BuonoBruttoCattivo


Yeah, but we have to be careful here...
Do we diminish Mika's WCs because he was w/ Newey.

Frequently.

The Senna 'myth' vrba was not created after he died, people were calling him one of the best of all time long before that.

[Jordan191]

Since this is a Senna vs Schumacher thread I'll get this in now.

All the things that MS gets bashed for are the same things Senna was guilty of at one point or another during his career. I find it extremely hypocritical that some Senna fans would bash schumacher and vice versa. These people would , in effect be bashing ther own driver since they both were/are utterly focused on winning and are willing to do whatever is necessary. This isn't normally a bad thing.

If I were a team owner in 1992 and were truly serious to mount a challenge for long term success in F1 I'd grab either one in a heartbeat. Schumacher would have the edge because of his age/potential career.

Having said that I'm not happy with either as characters. but I'm not a team owner.

[GDoering]

Originally posted by HSJ


...or that MS cars have been seriously underrated by his fans throughout his career. See how Brundle did against MS, for example. I guess Martin was in Senna's league too.

I don't think there's ever been a driver who's equipment has been so systematically underrated as MS. It is just unbelievable. Apologies to the more level-headed MS fans, they must be just as bewildered as I am.

Perhaps it is because we have never been able to judge MS against real teammates, like we could with AP vs. Lauda or Rosberg, AS vs. AP. So when the legends are not born naturally, they must be made?

...or you could talk to anybody with any knowledge of F1 and you would find that his cars have not been underrated. The only people that believe that MS has always had the best car are MS bashers like you and Magic. Did you even watch 1992 or are you so blind to not see that MS outqualified MB 16-0 and by an average of over a second? Schumacher has never been outqualified by his teammate and it hasn't even been close. I believe MS has been outqualified 12 times in 180 races. To put that in perspective Kimi has already been outqualified 18 times in 35 races yet you think he's the second coming of Senna. You don't have to like MS but to constantly put down his achievements proves how little about F1 you actually know. It is possible to be a fan of one driver and still appreciate other drivers' talents.

[Jacaré]

Originally posted by BuonoBruttoCattivo
I would have liked Senna to drive for Ferrari, but he wasn't interested at that point. Ferrari wasn't good enough for him obviously...

yep in 1992 Ferrari had Capelli, out of his depth in a top team. The previous year they had a great champion Prost but got rid of him when he described the car as a truck.

[BuonoBruttoCattivo]

Originally posted by GDoering
...or you could talk to anybody with any knowledge of F1 and you would find that his cars have not been underrated. The only people that believe that MS has always had the best car are MS bashers like you and Magic. Did you even watch 1992 or are you so blind to not see that MS outqualified MB 16-0 and by an average of over a second? Schumacher has never been outqualified by his teammate and it hasn't even been close. I believe MS has been outqualified 12 times in 180 races. To put that in perspective Kimi has already been outqualified 18 times in 35 races yet you think he's the second coming of Senna. You don't have to like MS but to constantly put down his achievements proves how little about F1 you actually know. It is possible to be a fan of one driver and still appreciate other drivers' talents.

Nice one.
Take it easy on him, poor guy, he's only been watching F1 for a few years.

Atleast Tragic is actually marginally comical, why anyone would take him seriously is beyond me.

[Jacaré]

Originally posted by Vrba
Here are the facts. It's a very simple question - Michael beat reigning World Champion on points in his first full year in the championship. Did he do a better job than Ayrton?

Michael did a good job for his team by collecting a lot of points, Ayrton did a good job for the fans, taking the fight to the Williams, living up to the #1 on his car.

[Ricardo F1]

Then again Kimi has DC as a team mate, not Martin Brundle.

[BuonoBruttoCattivo]

Originally posted by Jacaré

yep in 1992 Ferrari had Capelli, out of his depth in a top team. The previous year they had a great champion Prost but got rid of him when he described the car as a truck.

yep, and in 1989, Mansell was hard at work developing semi-auto, which lead to the 641/2 which nearly won if it wasn't for...oops.

How appetizing was Ferrari in 1995 when MS signed on the dotted line?