Schumacher vs Senna

[Ari]

Who was the better driver?

It's more than likely this has been done before but there are always fresh opinions out there!

My thoughts are very much that of splinters on the bum. I'm sitting on the fence. I can't separate them. My heart says Senna.... my head doesn't know.

[Hawkmoon]

This is a sure fire argument starter but it's a fun topic none-the-less.

For me, it's Schumacher without question. But I've loved Ferrari for more than half my life so mine is hardly an objective opinion. I'll take off the rosso-tinted glasses for a moment and give it a go. ;)

All of the numbers are in Schumacher's favour with the exception of percentage of pole position starts. Even then, Schumacher won a higher percentage of races, despite starting from the front less than Senna did.

The arguments for Senna are largely the intangible ones. Strength of opposition for example. The problem with intangibles is that they are very subjective. Senna competed against Prost, Piquet and Mansell, champions all. The question is, how do these guys compare to Hill, Hakkinen, Villeneuve and Alonso? I'd say it's a slight edge to Senna because of Prost but I think Hakkinen and Alonso compare to Piquet and Mansell favourably.

Strength of machinery? They both had the best at their disposal and both won with cars that weren't the best. I don't think this one either detracts or enhances the arguemnt for either driver.

Teammates? Again, the Prost factor gives this one to Senna. Schumacher raced against Piquet, but only briefly and it was Piquet's last season.

I don't feel that Senna having the edge in terms of who he competed with and against outweighs Schumacher's strike rate. Schumacher won with metronomic consistency that made his competitors look worse than they actually were, rather than them making him look better than he was.

[F1boat]

Well, Michael, I think. He achieved much more.

[Storm]

Senna.

Although I like Hawkmoon's analysis and agree with some points...but like you said Senna had that quality to him which hasn't been seen for a long time.

MS won more and was very consistent but also he had one the best cars ever in 2 of his seasons where the other cars were so bad (2002 & 4) that their was effectively no competition.

Also as you say Hakkinen and Alonso are probably as good or better than the couple you mentioned but also that in head-to-head with Alonso when they had competitive cars , Michael lost both those title races.

Of course he was tremendous driver, and could put in fast laps at will in a race situation but he also made a few more mistakes under pressure.

Of course, I am slightly biased as Senna was the star when I started watching F1 and the fact that he isn't with us anymore.

[ioan]

This is a sure fire argument starter but it's a fun topic none-the-less.

For me, it's Schumacher without question. But I've loved Ferrari for more than half my life so mine is hardly an objective opinion. I'll take off the rosso-tinted glasses for a moment and give it a go. ;)

All of the numbers are in Schumacher's favour with the exception of percentage of pole position starts. Even then, Schumacher won a higher percentage of races, despite starting from the front less than Senna did.

The arguments for Senna are largely the intangible ones. Strength of opposition for example. The problem with intangibles is that they are very subjective. Senna competed against Prost, Piquet and Mansell, champions all. The question is, how do these guys compare to Hill, Hakkinen, Villeneuve and Alonso? I'd say it's a slight edge to Senna because of Prost but I think Hakkinen and Alonso compare to Piquet and Mansell favourably.

Strength of machinery? They both had the best at their disposal and both won with cars that weren't the best. I don't think this one either detracts or enhances the arguemnt for either driver.

Teammates? Again, the Prost factor gives this one to Senna. Schumacher raced against Piquet, but only briefly and it was Piquet's last season.

I don't feel that Senna having the edge in terms of who he competed with and against outweighs Schumacher's strike rate. Schumacher won with metronomic consistency that made his competitors look worse than they actually were, rather than them making him look better than he was.

Great analysis! I agree completely! :up:

[ioan]

...but also that in head-to-head with Alonso when they had competitive cars , Michael lost both those title races.

Stormy please tell me you aren't serious when you say that the 2005 Ferrari and Renault were equally competitive cars! ;)

[Storm]

2005 maybe not..but pretty close...2006 surely? Renault had the fastest out of the block but the Ferrari was so much quicker in the second half of the season..
:)
and I said competitive :p : not equal!

[ioan]

and I said competitive :p : not equal!

Well they were not on the same level of competitiveness either in 2005. ;)

[THE_LIBERATOR]

I think it's intangible to compare them on numbers.

Schumacher was in the sport for longer (& may be back). During that time he competed in seasons with 18 races +, & at times had the most reliable package the sport has ever seen.

[Valve Bounce]

Who was the better driver?

It's more than likely this has been done before but there are always fresh opinions out there!

My thoughts are very much that of splinters on the bum. I'm sitting on the fence. I can't separate them. My heart says Senna.... my head doesn't know.


You could ask who was the better FF: Johnny Coleman or Hudson. You'd be in the same position, although I would be inclined to name Johnny as he never got the protection from the umpires that Hudson had.

[wedge]

The arguments for Senna are largely the intangible ones. Strength of opposition for example. The problem with intangibles is that they are very subjective. Senna competed against Prost, Piquet and Mansell, champions all. The question is, how do these guys compare to Hill, Hakkinen, Villeneuve and Alonso? I'd say it's a slight edge to Senna because of Prost but I think Hakkinen and Alonso compare to Piquet and Mansell favourably.

.....I don't feel that Senna having the edge in terms of who he competed with and against outweighs Schumacher's strike rate. Schumacher won with metronomic consistency that made his competitors look worse than they actually were, rather than them making him look better than he was.

One explanation for Schumi's superior strike rate is because he was number 1 driver. Senna had to contend with Prost in a more equal environment in the late 80s, whereas Schumi had the benefit of team orders.

I'd say Senna would be the better driver over one lap. Using Hakkinen as a yardstick, the Flying Finn is regarded as one of the quickest drivers over one lap. Hakkinen would lay down the gauntlet and set an unbelievable benchmark on his first few laps, Schumi would struggle a bit and usually try to steal pole under the dying seconds of qualy.

Over a race? Hard to say, both display superior pace and enjoy driving on the edge, both superior in the wet, and both are very clever behind the cockpit.

[markabilly]

There is something about a driver wha has done well, and drove with some fire that makes him very special when he dies in a race car. Clark, Gilles, Rindt, Senna, Peterson--names spoken with a hushed reverence

Stewart was as special as Clark, but did not die and lived to be called a half wit by a true half wit. Same for Prost. And will be the same for MS.

If those drivers had lived, perhaps they would now be treated no different than Stewart and Prost are now....

[Hawkmoon]

One explanation for Schumi's superior strike rate is because he was number 1 driver. Senna had to contend with Prost in a more equal environment in the late 80s, whereas Schumi had the benefit of team orders.

Senna and Prost were only teammates for two seasons, 1988 and 1989. The balance of his career was spent against the likes of Pierluigi Martini, Johnny Ceccotto, Stefan Johansson, Elio De Angelis, Satoru Nakajima, Gerhard Berger, Michael Andretti, Mika Hakkinen and Damon Hill.

This list of teammates is no better than Schumachers'. With the exception of Prost. Prost is the only Senna teammate who is clearly better than anybody Schumacher raced with. That's why I give Senna a slight edge in this one.

[Ranger]

Senna and Prost were only teammates for two seasons, 1988 and 1989. The balance of his career was spent against the likes of Pierluigi Martini, Johnny Ceccotto, Stefan Johansson, Elio De Angelis, Satoru Nakajima, Gerhard Berger, Michael Andretti, Mika Hakkinen and Damon Hill.

This list of teammates is no better than Schumachers'. With the exception of Prost. Prost is the only Senna teammate who is clearly better than anybody Schumacher raced with. That's why I give Senna a slight edge in this one.
Hakkinen and Hill were no slouches though, as shown by their eventual titles.
I'd say Berger is around par with Irvine and Barrichello.

[SGWilko]

Well, Michael, I think. He achieved much more.

Probably because he is still alive perhaps?

[ioan]

... Schumi would struggle a bit and usually try to steal pole under the dying seconds of qualy.

You forgot the "" before and after a certain word there.

[ioan]

Probably because he is still alive perhaps?

Right, on top of being very fast and successful he also managed to stay alive while taking the risks. :p :


I believe that if Senna wouldn't have died in that tragic accident fewer people would regard him as high as that. After all Prost had the better of him and because he's alive very few people do start threads to compare him with the all time greatest.

[Ranger]

I believe that if Senna wouldn't have died in that tragic accident fewer people would regard him as high as that. After all Prost had the better of him and because he's alive very few people do start threads to compare him with the all time greatest.

Prost didn't have the better of Senna at all.
In their 2 seasons together:

Senna had 26 poles, Prost had 4.
Senna had 14 wins, Prost had 11
They had one title apiece.

That's barely one sided towards Prost.

The reason why this comparison is being made, I suppose, is that Prost was at retirement age when he retired. Senna still had at least 3 years of competitive driving left in him (based on Schumacher's retirement age), when he unfortunately passed away. Another reason for this thread is that Senna's and Schumacher's competitive careers were just crossing over when he died, hence the speculation.

A lot of these comparisons are made based on driver popularity, and Senna was more popular than Prost even then, that's a fact. Likewise, nowadays Hamilton is more popular than Alonso, and is being compared with the best ever, despite the two titles his team-mate has.

Although just because a driver is killed whilst racing doesn't make him an all time great either. Juan Manuel Fangio lived to the ripe old age of 84, yet in life and death he was still considered one of the best ever. Likewise with Schumacher.

Just because threads are not made as commonly about Prost doesn't mean he isn't regarded as one of the greats, at least not with me.

Good topic, this. :up:

[ioan]

The reason why this comparison is being made, I suppose, is that Prost was at retirement age when he retired. Senna still had at least 3 years of competitive driving left in him (based on Schumacher's retirement age), when he unfortunately passed away.

This is just speculation, as you say, thus any comparison should be made based on facts.

Saying that Senna had another 3 years of competitive racing left, based on MS's retirement age, is really pushing the speculation too far.


Another reason for this thread is that Senna's and Schumacher's competitive careers were just crossing over when he died, hence the speculation.

And MS was slowly getting the better of him, in a pretty constant manner, thus if you allow me to do some speculation, AS wouldn't have continued for another 3 years just to be upstaged by the young German, he's ego was to big for that, IMO.

[rohanweb]

Achievementwise it has to be MS..
row speed wise it has to be AS..

overall I think Senna is a better driver, given he had to fight with tough opponents wheel to wheel for wins, and MS relatively just drove to his wins much of the time than fighting tough opponents to overcome wins/record, if he didnt die He would have set the best ever record in F1.

[Dazz9908]

Achievementwise it has to be MS..
row speed wise it has to be AS..

overall I think Senna is a better driver, given he had to fight with tough opponents wheel to wheel for wins, and MS relatively just drove to his wins much of the time than fighting tough opponents to overcome wins/record, if he didnt die He would have set the best ever record in F1.

Well said but remember Senna Drove in atime where reliablity was poor, and Cars we're cannonballs not the wind-tunnel, electronic stablisied cars of Shumi's area,

Senna is on top remember he thought against several world champs at once, Shumi as best I can remeber,2, Hill and JV.

With this in mind, Senna IS Head and Shoulders in front.

[THE_LIBERATOR]

Well in my opinion had he not died, Senna would surely have won the championship 1994 (if Hill came that close!!). Development for the 1995 car would have been different, Benetton may even have been blocked from obtaining Renault engines. Senna would have signed for Ferrari in 1996, & retired a 5 time world champion in 1998.

This is of course speculation, but it's as worthy, & true as anyone else's speculation.

[SGWilko]

This is just speculation, as you say, thus any comparison should be made based on facts.

Saying that Senna had another 3 years of competitive racing left, based on MS's retirement age, is really pushing the speculation too far.



And MS was slowly getting the better of him, in a pretty constant manner, thus if you allow me to do some speculation, AS wouldn't have continued for another 3 years just to be upstaged by the young German, he's ego was to big for that, IMO.

That was a joke, right, the last paragraph? Michael was beaten (very nearly) by Hill in '94 remember, that was only Hill's second season in F1 (in a competetive seat), so I fail to see how Ayrton would have been WORSE than Hill that year.....

But, as you say elsewhere Ioan, it depends on your POV, eh. ;)

[ioan]

That was a joke, right, the last paragraph? Michael was beaten (very nearly) by Hill in '94 remember, that was only Hill's second season in F1 (in a competetive seat), so I fail to see how Ayrton would have been WORSE than Hill that year.....

But, as you say elsewhere Ioan, it depends on your POV, eh. ;)

In 94 out out of the few races that they both competed who won more MS or AS?
That's the only fact we have.

What if's are what if's and can't be verified.

[markabilly]

A car can only go so fast, no matter who is driving it. When all is said and done, the importance of a WDC is that it indicates an ability to do it for a whole season, well enough when things are going bad to score sufficient points.

Beyond that, whatever differences there are or were in terms of driver ability between top drivers, are microscopic compared to the differences between cars, esp. in the last twenty years or so, where if the car is not there, you will not see much driver talent. And that says nothing about the tires. Many seasons and drivers are judged by the car they drove, when the tires might have made even more difference.

As to Senna he was pure racer, whereas MS was more of a complete package in terms of being more car principle at Ferari than anyone else who was there, with more control over what was happening than any other driver in the last thirty years or so of history (to find a driver in a similar position one needs to look at Brabham, Bruce the real Maclaren, and Gurney with the Eagle from the 1960's and very early seventies), so when one says MS had a better car, then that is something he deserved some credit for helping to create.

So for me that makes MS something more special than Senna or anyone else of the last 20 years or so. But does that make him a faster better driver. Not really. And as said before by others, it is all just specualtion. Once adriver has demonstrated sufficient talent, then it becomes more car than driver. And all the reason why I think BMW blew it, as FA may not be the very best ever, but he is at least equal to the very best of the other three of Kimi, Massa and LH...whereas what BMW now has is still a big question mark.

Bottom line : If you had a championship worthy car and had the chance to hire MS or Senna (and could afford the price of admission) would you hire one or the other or both? Only someone with a different agenda other than maxing out the winning, would not hire one or both, unless they already had some one named Prost, Clark, Stewart, Mansell, or some other very worthy WDC already driving for them.

[Dave B]

You're comparing apples with oranges.

Firstly from a purely statistical perspective it's impossible to make comparisons because Senna's career was cut tragically short. Who knows if he would have gone on to take more championships - possibly even denying Schumacher his '94 and '95 titles? Impossible to say.

Secondly their approaches were different. Senna was more of a natural talent who seemed to defy the odds to achieve the impossible. Schumacher, certainly in his Ferrari era, was more analytical and served to bond the team in a way which set new standards; but question marks still exist about his outright speed.

It's one of those questions to which there is no satisfactory answer, and in my opinion that's exactly how it should be. Any measure of who was "better" is purely subjective.

[Dave B]

Right, on top of being very fast and successful he [Schumacher] also managed to stay alive while taking the risks. :p :
Is that sarcasm (in which case it's pretty poor taste) or are you genuinely suggesting that Senna was in some way responsible for causing his own death? :confused:

[wedge]

As to Senna he was pure racer, whereas MS was more of a complete package in terms of being more car principle at Ferari than anyone else who was there, with more control over what was happening than any other driver in the last thirty years or so of history (to find a driver in a similar position one needs to look at Brabham, Bruce the real Maclaren, and Gurney with the Eagle from the 1960's and very early seventies), so when one says MS had a better car, then that is something he deserved some credit for helping to create.

Not so sure if I agree with you there. Even British engineers when he raced in junior formulae were mighty impressed with Senna's feedback. When he went testing he could drive at 80% and point out where he could make up a few tenths and Senna would accurately do it come race weekend.

It's no reason Honda had a fetish for the Brazilians, Senna was accused of having better engines than Prost in 88/89. It was down to Senna's feedback that Honda developed fly-by-wire throttle technology. I believe Senna went on to write to Max Mosely to keep fly-by-wire throttles as well as banning TC in the early 90s.


Senna was more of a natural talent who seemed to defy the odds to achieve the impossible. Schumacher, certainly in his Ferrari era, was more analytical and served to bond the team in a way which set new standards; but question marks still exist about his outright speed.

In a race I've had a slight feeling that Schumi would edge out Senna (ever so slightly) if ever these guys were on the absolute limit. Senna undoubtedly drove from the heart and relied on his natural talent a lot more and that where the mistakes would come. I get the feeling Senna would destroy his tyres at the end of a stint whereas Schumi would probably have something left in reserve.

[F1boat]

In a battle, I think that MS will probably pitpass him.

[ioan]

Is that sarcasm (in which case it's pretty poor taste) or are you genuinely suggesting that Senna was in some way responsible for causing his own death? :confused:

A bit of both, but mostly the later.

From what I know no one was found guilty for his death.
Given that he didn't die in mysterious circumstances in the middle of the woods I suppose that those involved do know very well what happened, but for some reason won't say.
Maybe he was responsible for his own death and no one wants to say it in order not to destroy the myth?!

[Colin]

In a battle, I think that MS will probably pitpass him.

Yes! That is one of the biggest differences to me! Senna made passes on track since they didn't refuel in those days. To me this required more 'racecraft' than the current model of staying out longer and doing qualifying laps on an empty track to make the pass in the pits. (I will admit you have to do the best you can with the rules in play at the time, but I don't have to like it)

[markabilly]

Achievementwise it has to be MS..
row speed wise it has to be AS..

overall I think Senna is a better driver, given he had to fight with tough opponents wheel to wheel for wins, and MS relatively just drove to his wins much of the time than fighting tough opponents to overcome wins/record, if he didnt die He would have set the best ever record in F1.
Weell now when it came to bumping cars with other drivers, Senna seemes to have an edge, those crashes with Prost were very spectacular compared to those little bumps of MS....

Strnage when it was Senna, no one remebersanything but tough driving "wheel to wheel" , but when it was MS, it was "unsportsman"

[markabilly]

Not so sure if I agree with you there. Even British engineers when he raced in junior formulae were mighty impressed with Senna's feedback. When he went testing he could drive at 80% and point out where he could make up a few tenths and Senna would accurately do it come race weekend.

It's no reason Honda had a fetish for the Brazilians, Senna was accused of having better engines than Prost in 88/89. It was down to Senna's feedback that Honda developed fly-by-wire throttle technology. I believe Senna went on to write to Max Mosely to keep fly-by-wire throttles as well as banning TC in the early 90s.



.
I was refferring to not only being a tester and helping develope the car, but the amount of control he had over the entire process and team (which was well hidden behind the scenes but in his contract and excercised with discretion as with any good leader) as well as being its spiritual leader...which is why I firmly believe he decided NOT to go to Mac when offerred the opportunity to do so as he believed that RD would never give him that type of control to a mere driver....sponsors had nothing to do with it....and for me, that is what sets him apart from all the others of recent vintage

[wedge]

I was refferring to not only being a tester and helping develope the car, but the amount of control he had over the entire process and team (which was well hidden behind the scenes but in his contract and excercised with discretion as with any good leader) as well as being its spiritual leader...which is why I firmly believe he decided NOT to go to Mac when offerred the opportunity to do so as he believed that RD would never give him that type of control to a mere driver....sponsors had nothing to do with it....and for me, that is what sets him apart from all the others of recent vintage

I'll probably agree with you in Schumi being a better team leader, but only slightly. Senna was more of an introvert and that sometimes leads to misunderstandings, nevertheless Senna still commanded respect in his garage. He spent many hours with his engineers and could talk freely about race cars.

Probably what Schumi the edge is his circle of trust: Nigel Stepney and Ross Brawn, though Senna had a strong relationship with Ron.

There's only so much a driver can influence a team. 2005 being a good example - by modern standards, Ferrari and Bridgestone had a terrible package and there was a point where Schumi could only do so much.


Weell now when it came to bumping cars with other drivers, Senna seemes to have an edge, those crashes with Prost were very spectacular compared to those little bumps of MS....

Strnage when it was Senna, no one remebersanything but tough driving "wheel to wheel" , but when it was MS, it was "unsportsman"

IMO both Senna and Schumi are hard racers, not willing to give an inch, and both been involved in a number of racing incidents.

I think why there are perceived differences is because Senna put the fear in everyone except for Prost because it was personal or when Senna raced Mansell it was a dare of who would brake/lift first.

whereas it seemed everyone on the grid criticised Schumi's driving hence he was branded unfairly to a degree as 'unsportsmanlike', which goes back Schumi being targeted unfairly - and to a degree - because of the quality of the opposition/Schumi making everyone look stupid.

[Osella]

Well I can't believe this thread is even started. Prost was better than Senna, and I believe should be the one Schumacher should be compared to..

I have been watching F1 since the late 80's and well remember the times when Senna 'should have been' banned after Suzuka '90.. (particularly Stewart, Moss and Murray Walker). Prost had the good sense to realise Senna was not a god, and was probably just insane to a degree.

The other major factor about this era that people forget is that it was very much a case of the haves and the have not's.. 1988 Was a McLaren year only because of the car/engine package. So that Senna beat Prost (on dropped scores, he actually scored less overall points) is good for him, but his second title was gained in downright shameful circumstances.

Those of you who rant about Jerez/Adelaide with regard to Schumacher may or may not realise that Senna announced to anyone who would listen that he would not allow Prost to get through turn 1 of Suzuka 1990 ahead of him, and would drive flat out into the Ferrari if he was behind it; which he then proceded to do... What recriminations were there? None..

Prost however took many poles, and was capable of looking after his tyres and car for a full race, he beat (as team-mates) Lauda, Rosberg and Senna! How's that for comparison..? He also raced ground effect cars, turbo cars, raced with fuels stops, without fuel stops, in manual cars and active cars, all with success, race wins, titles and very near title misses... How the hell anyone thinks Senna was better than Prost is way beyond me. And Schumacher is better than Prost, even Prost says so!

Remember in 1991 the Benetton had an H-pattern manual gearbox, Pirelli tyres, no Active ride, no traction control and a customer engine. How's that for a bulletproof, aero-developed, high-technology, safe car?
The B192 of the following year (from race 4 onwards) still had only a semi automatic gearbox, that still required a hand of the wheel to operate initially, it still lacked active ride, had no traction control, and had a customer Cosworth engine. That year, Schumacher finished third in the championship, ahead of Senna and only a couple of points behind Riccardo Patrese. Both Ayrton and Riccardo were in active-ride,paddle-shift, traction controlled cars with full works engines and much larger development budgets. How's that for Schumacher's bulletproof, reliable, high-technology, aero-designed dominant racecar...? Especially for a driver in his First full season! He also gained his first win..

1993, The Benetton B193 (from the 3rd race on) had paddle-shift semi-Auto gearbox. From Monaco it also had traction control, and from Suzuka 4-wheel-steer. The Williams had all this, active ride, Renault works engines AND from Germany were running Anti-Lock braking! Likewise the McLaren did too excepting the ABS, but were running the same engines as Benetton from Spain (round 5) onward, having previously been a step behind. That year Michael was 4th, behind both Williamses and Senna, winning another race and dominating Monaco until the new traction control system caused a hydraulics failure.

By the way, up to this point is was not compulsory to make pitstops in F1...yet Michael still won races and podium finishes, along with consistently high championship results in a car emphatically off the pace of the leading constructors. Oh yeah, he also drove hard and hit other cars too...

In 1992 he told Ayrton Senna he was unimpressed with is driving in Magny Cours, and again in 1993 after South Africa (for the uninitiated, Senna used to weave all over the track to stop another driver overtaking. What was now know at the Schumacher Swerve came about because of this and South Africa 1993). He also stated that if that was the way Senna wanted to play it, he could drive equally as hard. This he demonstrated with another confrontation in Canada (after a Senna weave). This is not in any way intended to exonorate Schumacher to those of you who do not believe his driving to be 'spotrsmanlike' but is just a gentle reminder to go and watch Ayrton's driving throughout the 80's and 90's and see just how much he weaves to stop others passing. It is also an initiation to the naive who believe that Schumacher is bad because he won things and Senna is great because they never actually saw him race and have just heard stories of how good he was.. Watch Mansell vs Senna, Spain 1991. Senna said Mansell was dangerous for racing him so hard that day... Then watch Suzuka 1990.... Then watch Jerez 1997 and ask yoursevles who exactly is dangerous and who is 'unsportsmanlike'...

Prost did wonders with Ferrari to bring them to the brink of the 1990 title, Schumacher did more later on, some of his driving was mesmeric in 1997 and 1998, and I would just say one thing with regard to qualifying records of Senna vs Schumacher... How many times did Senna pull out a stunningly fast lap which destroyed everyone else in qualifying? And how many times did Schumacher reel off sequances of stunningly fast laps in a race situation which destroyes everyone else in a race!?!! Which is harder, one chance to do it, or keeping a consistently higher level lap after lap after lap. I will leave that up to you to decide, however I think that the fact we have numerous drivers who are 'qualifying specialists' says a lot, and very few who are known as being devastatingly fast devastatingly consistently...especially in wet or dry conditions...

Even aside from the seven titles, the race win records and the pole position records, it is this sheer ability advantage which I think makes Schumacher the best of all time. He didn't just do it in one race, not one lap, not in one car, not even in one season he did it all his career. I don't think it is possible to put together a top 10 of his best races where those sheer unbelievable performances were put to the fore, as I know there are more than 10 of virtually equal brilliance. Are there really any other drivers who you could say that about, ever?

I think Michael Schumacher and Valentino Rossi are two, you could include Jacky Ickx perhaps, and many other drivers who drove 3/4 of those races where every lap was more amazing than anyone else could achieve, but very few, and none I think in F1 with the exception of Michael Schumacher where you could say there are more than 10 such races.
This is Schumacher's legend, it has led to race wins and titles, but even discounting all those records, he is still the best based on driving talent alone. Add the records and achievements to that, add the Ferrari legend to that, and the man's sheer character and generosity to that, and you simply have no argument against Schumacher being the greatest F1 driver we have ever seen.

[ShiftingGears]

This is Schumacher's legend, it has led to race wins and titles, but even discounting all those records, he is still the best based on driving talent alone. Add the records and achievements to that, add the Ferrari legend to that, and the man's sheer character and generosity to that, and you simply have no argument against Schumacher being the greatest F1 driver we have ever seen.

Jim Clark.
Held the record for Youngest F1 World Champion
Held the record for most championship grands prix wins and pole positions.
Winner of Indianapolis 500, 2nd in 1963 and 1966
1964 BTCC champion
1966 RAC Stage winner and was leading when he crashed out
Known for his ability to master recalcitrant cars such as the Lotus 30 and 40, with his ability to be staggeringly fast and yet gentle on the car.
Race leader of the Nurburgring 1000 in a 1.1L Lotus prototype
Won British GP in 1965 when, with failing oil pressure, turned off the car through Stowe and Club before restarting on the run to Abbey so as to not alert rival teams of his predicament.
Passed the Brabhams of Jack Brabham and Denny Hulme for the lead in Zandvoort 1966, despite having a litre less engine capacity.
Won in Watkins Glen 1966 despite having the notorious BRM-H16 engine.
Unlapped himself after a tyre failure at Monza 1967 to be leading going into the last 2 laps of the race.
Still holds the record for the greatest number of Grand Chelems (13, leading for the entire race from pole, and setting the fastest lap)
Runner up in 1962 and 1964 World Championships, when oil leaks while leading the final race prevented him winning 4 straight world championships.
Brilliant rain driver, winning the Belgian Grand Prix 4 times.
In 1963, in wet conditions, he won at the 14km Spa Francorchamps by 4'54.0, the largest winning margin in a Formula One Grand prix to date.

Jim Clark was a truely dominant driver. And was a very human and loyal character as well. He was a living motor racing legend, just as Schumacher is.



How anyone can say any driver is definitely the best driver ever in F1 is beyond me. It's great to compare, but theres not going to be a definitive answer due to the different situations that the drivers win in.

[SGWilko]

Weell now when it came to bumping cars with other drivers, Senna seemes to have an edge, those crashes with Prost were very spectacular compared to those little bumps of MS....

Strnage when it was Senna, no one remebersanything but tough driving "wheel to wheel" , but when it was MS, it was "unsportsman"

The first 'bump' with Prost was down to the vindictiveness of Mr Creosote - AKA JMB - who thought it amusing to move the pole spot just for this race. No favouritism there.....

The second bump, was down to Senna getting even because he - rightly or wrongly - felt the Suzuka pole thing in 89 lost him the WDC.

Anyhow, at least Senna had the backbone to explain what and why he did what he did, and had good reason due to Mr Creosote.

[ArrowsFA1]

Anyhow, at least Senna had the backbone to explain what and why he did what he did, and had good reason due to Mr Creosote.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fef6blfYvrw

[ioan]

The first 'bump' with Prost was down to the vindictiveness of Mr Creosote - AKA JMB - who thought it amusing to move the pole spot just for this race. No favouritism there.....

The second bump, was down to Senna getting even because he - rightly or wrongly - felt the Suzuka pole thing in 89 lost him the WDC.

Anyhow, at least Senna had the backbone to explain what and why he did what he did, and had good reason due to Mr Creosote.

How's that thing you were telling me earlier about two wrongs that don't make one right? :p : :D

[ioan]

Well I can't believe this thread is even started. Prost was better than Senna, and I believe should be the one Schumacher should be compared to..

I have been watching F1 since the late 80's and well remember the times when Senna 'should have been' banned after Suzuka '90.. (particularly Stewart, Moss and Murray Walker). Prost had the good sense to realise Senna was not a god, and was probably just insane to a degree.

The other major factor about this era that people forget is that it was very much a case of the haves and the have not's.. 1988 Was a McLaren year only because of the car/engine package. So that Senna beat Prost (on dropped scores, he actually scored less overall points) is good for him, but his second title was gained in downright shameful circumstances.

Those of you who rant about Jerez/Adelaide with regard to Schumacher may or may not realise that Senna announced to anyone who would listen that he would not allow Prost to get through turn 1 of Suzuka 1990 ahead of him, and would drive flat out into the Ferrari if he was behind it; which he then proceded to do... What recriminations were there? None..

Prost however took many poles, and was capable of looking after his tyres and car for a full race, he beat (as team-mates) Lauda, Rosberg and Senna! How's that for comparison..? He also raced ground effect cars, turbo cars, raced with fuels stops, without fuel stops, in manual cars and active cars, all with success, race wins, titles and very near title misses... How the hell anyone thinks Senna was better than Prost is way beyond me. And Schumacher is better than Prost, even Prost says so!

Remember in 1991 the Benetton had an H-pattern manual gearbox, Pirelli tyres, no Active ride, no traction control and a customer engine. How's that for a bulletproof, aero-developed, high-technology, safe car?
The B192 of the following year (from race 4 onwards) still had only a semi automatic gearbox, that still required a hand of the wheel to operate initially, it still lacked active ride, had no traction control, and had a customer Cosworth engine. That year, Schumacher finished third in the championship, ahead of Senna and only a couple of points behind Riccardo Patrese. Both Ayrton and Riccardo were in active-ride,paddle-shift, traction controlled cars with full works engines and much larger development budgets. How's that for Schumacher's bulletproof, reliable, high-technology, aero-designed dominant racecar...? Especially for a driver in his First full season! He also gained his first win..

1993, The Benetton B193 (from the 3rd race on) had paddle-shift semi-Auto gearbox. From Monaco it also had traction control, and from Suzuka 4-wheel-steer. The Williams had all this, active ride, Renault works engines AND from Germany were running Anti-Lock braking! Likewise the McLaren did too excepting the ABS, but were running the same engines as Benetton from Spain (round 5) onward, having previously been a step behind. That year Michael was 4th, behind both Williamses and Senna, winning another race and dominating Monaco until the new traction control system caused a hydraulics failure.

By the way, up to this point is was not compulsory to make pitstops in F1...yet Michael still won races and podium finishes, along with consistently high championship results in a car emphatically off the pace of the leading constructors. Oh yeah, he also drove hard and hit other cars too...

In 1992 he told Ayrton Senna he was unimpressed with is driving in Magny Cours, and again in 1993 after South Africa (for the uninitiated, Senna used to weave all over the track to stop another driver overtaking. What was now know at the Schumacher Swerve came about because of this and South Africa 1993). He also stated that if that was the way Senna wanted to play it, he could drive equally as hard. This he demonstrated with another confrontation in Canada (after a Senna weave). This is not in any way intended to exonorate Schumacher to those of you who do not believe his driving to be 'spotrsmanlike' but is just a gentle reminder to go and watch Ayrton's driving throughout the 80's and 90's and see just how much he weaves to stop others passing. It is also an initiation to the naive who believe that Schumacher is bad because he won things and Senna is great because they never actually saw him race and have just heard stories of how good he was.. Watch Mansell vs Senna, Spain 1991. Senna said Mansell was dangerous for racing him so hard that day... Then watch Suzuka 1990.... Then watch Jerez 1997 and ask yoursevles who exactly is dangerous and who is 'unsportsmanlike'...

Prost did wonders with Ferrari to bring them to the brink of the 1990 title, Schumacher did more later on, some of his driving was mesmeric in 1997 and 1998, and I would just say one thing with regard to qualifying records of Senna vs Schumacher... How many times did Senna pull out a stunningly fast lap which destroyed everyone else in qualifying? And how many times did Schumacher reel off sequances of stunningly fast laps in a race situation which destroyes everyone else in a race!?!! Which is harder, one chance to do it, or keeping a consistently higher level lap after lap after lap. I will leave that up to you to decide, however I think that the fact we have numerous drivers who are 'qualifying specialists' says a lot, and very few who are known as being devastatingly fast devastatingly consistently...especially in wet or dry conditions...

Even aside from the seven titles, the race win records and the pole position records, it is this sheer ability advantage which I think makes Schumacher the best of all time. He didn't just do it in one race, not one lap, not in one car, not even in one season he did it all his career. I don't think it is possible to put together a top 10 of his best races where those sheer unbelievable performances were put to the fore, as I know there are more than 10 of virtually equal brilliance. Are there really any other drivers who you could say that about, ever?

I think Michael Schumacher and Valentino Rossi are two, you could include Jacky Ickx perhaps, and many other drivers who drove 3/4 of those races where every lap was more amazing than anyone else could achieve, but very few, and none I think in F1 with the exception of Michael Schumacher where you could say there are more than 10 such races.
This is Schumacher's legend, it has led to race wins and titles, but even discounting all those records, he is still the best based on driving talent alone. Add the records and achievements to that, add the Ferrari legend to that, and the man's sheer character and generosity to that, and you simply have no argument against Schumacher being the greatest F1 driver we have ever seen.

Excellent post! Well structurated, with good use of facts and F1 knowledge! :up:

[THE_LIBERATOR]

Well I can't believe this thread is even started. Prost was better than Senna, and I believe should be the one Schumacher should be compared to..

I have been watching F1 since the late 80's and well remember the times when Senna 'should have been' banned after Suzuka '90.. (particularly Stewart, Moss and Murray Walker). Prost had the good sense to realise Senna was not a god, and was probably just insane to a degree.

The other major factor about this era that people forget is that it was very much a case of the haves and the have not's.. 1988 Was a McLaren year only because of the car/engine package. So that Senna beat Prost (on dropped scores, he actually scored less overall points) is good for him, but his second title was gained in downright shameful circumstances.

Those of you who rant about Jerez/Adelaide with regard to Schumacher may or may not realise that Senna announced to anyone who would listen that he would not allow Prost to get through turn 1 of Suzuka 1990 ahead of him, and would drive flat out into the Ferrari if he was behind it; which he then proceded to do... What recriminations were there? None..

Prost however took many poles, and was capable of looking after his tyres and car for a full race, he beat (as team-mates) Lauda, Rosberg and Senna! How's that for comparison..? He also raced ground effect cars, turbo cars, raced with fuels stops, without fuel stops, in manual cars and active cars, all with success, race wins, titles and very near title misses... How the hell anyone thinks Senna was better than Prost is way beyond me. And Schumacher is better than Prost, even Prost says so!

Remember in 1991 the Benetton had an H-pattern manual gearbox, Pirelli tyres, no Active ride, no traction control and a customer engine. How's that for a bulletproof, aero-developed, high-technology, safe car?
The B192 of the following year (from race 4 onwards) still had only a semi automatic gearbox, that still required a hand of the wheel to operate initially, it still lacked active ride, had no traction control, and had a customer Cosworth engine. That year, Schumacher finished third in the championship, ahead of Senna and only a couple of points behind Riccardo Patrese. Both Ayrton and Riccardo were in active-ride,paddle-shift, traction controlled cars with full works engines and much larger development budgets. How's that for Schumacher's bulletproof, reliable, high-technology, aero-designed dominant racecar...? Especially for a driver in his First full season! He also gained his first win..

1993, The Benetton B193 (from the 3rd race on) had paddle-shift semi-Auto gearbox. From Monaco it also had traction control, and from Suzuka 4-wheel-steer. The Williams had all this, active ride, Renault works engines AND from Germany were running Anti-Lock braking! Likewise the McLaren did too excepting the ABS, but were running the same engines as Benetton from Spain (round 5) onward, having previously been a step behind. That year Michael was 4th, behind both Williamses and Senna, winning another race and dominating Monaco until the new traction control system caused a hydraulics failure.

By the way, up to this point is was not compulsory to make pitstops in F1...yet Michael still won races and podium finishes, along with consistently high championship results in a car emphatically off the pace of the leading constructors. Oh yeah, he also drove hard and hit other cars too...

In 1992 he told Ayrton Senna he was unimpressed with is driving in Magny Cours, and again in 1993 after South Africa (for the uninitiated, Senna used to weave all over the track to stop another driver overtaking. What was now know at the Schumacher Swerve came about because of this and South Africa 1993). He also stated that if that was the way Senna wanted to play it, he could drive equally as hard. This he demonstrated with another confrontation in Canada (after a Senna weave). This is not in any way intended to exonorate Schumacher to those of you who do not believe his driving to be 'spotrsmanlike' but is just a gentle reminder to go and watch Ayrton's driving throughout the 80's and 90's and see just how much he weaves to stop others passing. It is also an initiation to the naive who believe that Schumacher is bad because he won things and Senna is great because they never actually saw him race and have just heard stories of how good he was.. Watch Mansell vs Senna, Spain 1991. Senna said Mansell was dangerous for racing him so hard that day... Then watch Suzuka 1990.... Then watch Jerez 1997 and ask yoursevles who exactly is dangerous and who is 'unsportsmanlike'...

Prost did wonders with Ferrari to bring them to the brink of the 1990 title, Schumacher did more later on, some of his driving was mesmeric in 1997 and 1998, and I would just say one thing with regard to qualifying records of Senna vs Schumacher... How many times did Senna pull out a stunningly fast lap which destroyed everyone else in qualifying? And how many times did Schumacher reel off sequances of stunningly fast laps in a race situation which destroyes everyone else in a race!?!! Which is harder, one chance to do it, or keeping a consistently higher level lap after lap after lap. I will leave that up to you to decide, however I think that the fact we have numerous drivers who are 'qualifying specialists' says a lot, and very few who are known as being devastatingly fast devastatingly consistently...especially in wet or dry conditions...

Even aside from the seven titles, the race win records and the pole position records, it is this sheer ability advantage which I think makes Schumacher the best of all time. He didn't just do it in one race, not one lap, not in one car, not even in one season he did it all his career. I don't think it is possible to put together a top 10 of his best races where those sheer unbelievable performances were put to the fore, as I know there are more than 10 of virtually equal brilliance. Are there really any other drivers who you could say that about, ever?

I think Michael Schumacher and Valentino Rossi are two, you could include Jacky Ickx perhaps, and many other drivers who drove 3/4 of those races where every lap was more amazing than anyone else could achieve, but very few, and none I think in F1 with the exception of Michael Schumacher where you could say there are more than 10 such races.
This is Schumacher's legend, it has led to race wins and titles, but even discounting all those records, he is still the best based on driving talent alone. Add the records and achievements to that, add the Ferrari legend to that, and the man's sheer character and generosity to that, and you simply have no argument against Schumacher being the greatest F1 driver we have ever seen.I guess you see what you want to see.

[ioan]

I guess you see what you want to see.

I think it's the same for everyone! :rolleyes:
At least he chose to back up his views with a well thought post, unlike many many others who just throw in a biased opinion based on nothing.

[Garry Walker]

After all Prost had the better of him and because he's alive very few people do start threads to compare him with the all time greatest.

Did you actually see 1988 and 1989, or are you just trying to make people laugh? Because, my god, you are doing a good job of it.



Maybe he was responsible for his own death and no one wants to say it in order not to destroy the myth?!

Are you trolling? What did you just say about people throwing their biased opinions around?
F1 drivers can manage to take a straight, without going off. Tamburello was a straight for F1 drivers.


Well I can't believe this thread is even started. Prost was better than Senna, and I believe should be the one Schumacher should be compared to.. I cannot see how Prost was better than Senna, unless you are living in some other dimension? After all, Senna was easily faster when they had equal cars.



I have been watching F1 since the late 80's and well remember the times when Senna 'should have been' banned after Suzuka '90.. (particularly Stewart, Moss and Murray Walker). Prost should have been banned after 1989 then, and the tricks balestre played on Senna, were of very dirty nature.




The other major factor about this era that people forget is that it was very much a case of the haves and the have not's.. 1988 Was a McLaren year only because of the car/engine package. So that Senna beat Prost (on dropped scores, he actually scored less overall points) is good for him, but his second title was gained in downright shameful circumstances. Senna had the edge over Prost in both 88 and 89, only reliability problems stopped him from taking the deserved title in 1989. And even then, Prost did not deserve the title.



Prost however took many poles, and was capable of looking after his tyres and car for a full race,

Senna took far more poles and was very capable of looking after his tyres as well, it was one of his strengths most of the time. Additionally, Lauda beat Prost in their first year together.


He also raced ground effect cars, turbo cars, raced with fuels stops, without fuel stops, in manual cars and active cars, all with success, race wins, titles and very near title misses... How the hell anyone thinks Senna was better than Prost is way beyond me.
How the hell anyone thinks Prost was better than Senna baffles me, when they had equal cars Prost was nowhere most of the time pacewise. Alas, Schumacher was/is better than both of them.

Obviously the Senna Schumacher comparison is a very emotional subject for most F1 fans and with the death of Senna, we were robbed of a great battle.
They were both very hard racers, Senna more emotionally driven and Schumacher more the "brain" driven. Both were unforgiving and took no prisoners in their approach. But that is the only way you can win.
If you ask my opinion, putting them in equal cars, then Senna would probably have beaten Schumacher 55%-45% in qualifying, but in races Schumachers better fitness and consistent speed would have given him the clear edge. Obviously, it was all very track-dependant, on some tracks Schumacher would have destroyed Senna (Montreal, Magny-cours, Spa, Barcelona), on some tracks Senna would have stood a chance (monza), but over a season, Schumacher would have taken the win by a clear margin.

[wedge]

Prost was better than Senna, and I believe should be the one Schumacher should be compared to..

....and very few who are known as being devastatingly fast devastatingly consistently...especially in wet or dry conditions..

How the hell anyone thinks Senna was better than Prost is way beyond me. And Schumacher is better than Prost, even Prost says so!

You forgot to mention Senna was better than Prost when it came to driving in the wet which is usually a trump card in this debate!

[ioan]

Are you trolling? What did you just say about people throwing their biased opinions around?
F1 drivers can manage to take a straight, without going off. Tamburello was a straight for F1 drivers.

Before attacking others do learn to quote properly.
I explained the facts I based my opinion on but you chose not to quote that part.

Talk about trolling! :rolleyes:

[Garry Walker]

Before attacking others do learn to quote properly.
I explained the facts I based my opinion on but you chose not to quote that part.

Talk about trolling! :rolleyes:

The FACTS??? It takes a crazy mind to derive the opinion you did, from the "facts" you stated.
You in one of your earlier made a pathetic remark about MS managing to stay alive, and Senna not (if that is not trolling, what is?), which you then stated again in one of your later posts where you came out with an absolutely ludicrous and embarrasing "theory" that people maybe are trying to cover up why Senna died, to protect his myth. Damn, that italian police. They sure must be big Senna fans.

If you were one of my employees, I would fire your ass at once.

[ioan]

The FACTS??? It takes a crazy mind to derive the opinion you did, from the "facts" you stated.
You in one of your earlier made a pathetic remark about MS managing to stay alive, and Senna not (if that is not trolling, what is?), which you then stated again in one of your later posts where you came out with an absolutely ludicrous and embarrasing "theory" that people maybe are trying to cover up why Senna died, to protect his myth. Damn, that italian police. They sure must be big Senna fans.

If you were one of my employees, I would fire your ass at once.

Would you enlighten us why no one was found guilty for Senna's death?
After all he didn't die because a meteorite coming from the outer space fall on his car during the GP!

How can it be that no one is guilty for his death?!

Would you show us a piece of your superior, flawless, logics?! Or you derive some kind of pleasure from bashing other forum members? :rolleyes:

[ioan]

Did you actually see 1988 and 1989, or are you just trying to make people laugh? Because, my god, you are doing a good job of it.

So, those were the only seasons when both were in F1?
Comparing drivers only based on seasons that suit ones POV.

[ioan]

Prost should have been banned after 1989 then, and the tricks balestre played on Senna, were of very dirty nature.

Senna had the edge over Prost in both 88 and 89, only reliability problems stopped him from taking the deserved title in 1989. And even then, Prost did not deserve the title.

You say others are wrong and than you come with this kind of arguments! :rolleyes:

[Garry Walker]

Would you enlighten us why no one was found guilty for Senna's death?
After all he didn't die because a meteorite coming from the outer space fall on his car during the GP!
How can it be that no one is guilty for his death?!
Are you for real?
1)Why would anyone be guilty for his death? Unless you are suggesting it was deliberate?
Something in the car failed (will you hold the car guilty?), the car was too damaged to determine what exactly. That is pretty obvious, a F1 driver will just not drive out like that, remember that was pretty much a straight for a F1 driver. Now, I have no idea what failed. Nor do you. We can only make logical assumptions. Some theories have gotten support from scientific research, for example that the steering column broke or that the tyre pressures were the problem. No serious study has shown that Senna is at fault. Sure, you can say that organizations like National Geographic etc, are in on the scam and are trying to protect the myth, but then you would not look very bright

Please post some evidence to your claim Senna was in fault in the accident. And no, saying "people are trying to protect his myth", will not do, remember police investigated it. Surely even you see somewhat of a problem there.


Would you show us a piece of your superior, flawless, logics?! Or you derive some kind of pleasure from bashing other forum members? :rolleyes:

I derive pleasure from making fun of people who deserve it.

[Garry Walker]

So, those were the only seasons when both were in F1?
Comparing drivers only based on seasons that suit ones POV.

Because those are the seasons they had equal cars. Yes, how dare I use that as support for my case. Biased man I am, trying to use the time they were in equal cars as a support for my argument.

Sure, we can look at their whole careers. In that case, I will say Prost was better in 84-86, and Senna was better every year after that.

[Garry Walker]

You say others are wrong and than you come with this kind of arguments! :rolleyes:

What was wrong with my arguments, come on, go and destroy them if you can :D

[ioan]

What was wrong with my arguments, come on, go and destroy them if you can :D

Can't destroy things that are inexistent!

All you do is provoke forum members without substantiating your claims!

[ioan]

Are you for real?
1)Why would anyone be guilty for his death? Unless you are suggesting it was deliberate?

So if someone makes a mistake and dies following that mistake, it isn't their fault?

Thanks for proving that you have no point other than trolling around here and satisfying your ego.

Case closed from my perspective.

[Garry Walker]

Can't destroy things that are inexistent!

All you do is provoke forum members without substantiating your claims!

Provoke? I attack people who claim things that are stupid. You chose to post stupidity, ergo, I attacked.

As for me having no arguments, here something for you -

Balestre moved the grid position around in 1990, and DSQ senna without a sensible reason in 1989. Those are dirty tricks
Senna had more reliability problems in 1989, than Prost by a long way.

Senna had a clear edge pacewise over Prost in both of the seasons, more so in 1989 than in 1988. Anyone who has watched the qualifying sessiond and races will agree.

Come on, argue with those, show me I am wrong. So far you have done your usual and posted no worthwhile response.

[Garry Walker]

So if someone makes a mistake and dies following that mistake, it isn't their fault? And if a technical component fails because of a reason that is impossible to determine due to excessive damage, no one can be found guilty, yes?
In any case, Fault and Guilt are not synonyms.

I love it when you toss around your "senna made a mistake", but I have asked for proof and so far you havent been able to give any. I have at least studies by scientists backing my theories, where is your proof? Come on, give it, or is your sig bull****?



Thanks for proving that you have no point other than trolling around here and satisfying your ego.

Case closed from my perspective.
You have been trolling on this forum for ages, with you mindless anti-hamilton yada, offering little proof, yet stating big words.

Case closed? You have been caught without pants on again, and are now trying to run away. Come on, offer proof for what you said.

[SGWilko]

Alright you two, enough already.

Gary, you have your opinion.

Ioan you have yours.

You've both said your piece.

End. Please? Before the FIA get involved.... ;)

Thanks.

[rabf1]

From Wikipedia:

"Ayrton described in detail an odd feeling that he got during his qualifying laps. His experience when qualifying for the 1988 Monaco GP for example he described as being in a tunnel or dreamlike state:

“ ...the last qualifying session. I was already on pole, then by half a second and then one second and I just kept going. Suddenly I was nearly two seconds faster than anybody else, including my team mate with the same car. And suddenly I realised that I was no longer driving the car consciously. I was driving it by a kind of instinct, only I was in a different dimension. It was like I was in a tunnel. Not only the tunnel under the hotel but the whole circuit was a tunnel. I was just going and going, more and more and more and more. I was way over the limit but still able to find even more.
Then suddenly something just kicked me. I kind of woke up and realised that I was in a different atmosphere than you normally are. My immediate reaction was to back off, slow down. I drove slowly back to the pits and I didn't want to go out any more that day. It frightened me because I was well beyond my conscious understanding. It happens rarely but I keep these experiences very much alive inside me because it is something that is important for self-preservation.
”

In that session, lap after lap he broke his own pole position time."

[ioan]

From Wikipedia:

"Ayrton described in detail an odd feeling that he got during his qualifying laps. His experience when qualifying for the 1988 Monaco GP for example he described as being in a tunnel or dreamlike state:

“ ...the last qualifying session. I was already on pole, then by half a second and then one second and I just kept going. Suddenly I was nearly two seconds faster than anybody else, including my team mate with the same car. And suddenly I realised that I was no longer driving the car consciously. I was driving it by a kind of instinct, only I was in a different dimension. It was like I was in a tunnel. Not only the tunnel under the hotel but the whole circuit was a tunnel. I was just going and going, more and more and more and more. I was way over the limit but still able to find even more.
Then suddenly something just kicked me. I kind of woke up and realised that I was in a different atmosphere than you normally are. My immediate reaction was to back off, slow down. I drove slowly back to the pits and I didn't want to go out any more that day. It frightened me because I was well beyond my conscious understanding. It happens rarely but I keep these experiences very much alive inside me because it is something that is important for self-preservation.
”

In that session, lap after lap he broke his own pole position time."

And how long were the qualifying stints at that moment?
It seems like he was doing plenty of qualifying laps one after the other without having to stop for fresh rubber and fuel.
Was he in that "tunnel" state also when he was in the pits?

Just a few questions that came while I was reading the above post.

he is describing it as it was some kind of superior feeling between him, the car and the circuit. I think it was all about concentration, but no way as supra natural as he was describing it. I reckon he would have been a good SF novelist!

[Rollo]

Well in my opinion had he not died, Senna would surely have won the championship 1994 (if Hill came that close!!). Development for the 1995 car would have been different, Benetton may even have been blocked from obtaining Renault engines. Senna would have signed for Ferrari in 1996, & retired a 5 time world champion in 1998.

This is of course speculation, but it's as worthy, & true as anyone else's speculation.

Between Prost, Hill, and Senna they won all bar one race for 1993. When Prost quit, Senna took over that seat; given that Senna didn't finish any races in 1994 (though was leading in San Marino) and that Hill lost the championship by a point, it's more than reasonable to suggest that had Senna come to terms with the car, then he would have given both Schumacher and Hill a lesson in whoop-arse. At Aida, it was Hakkinen who ran into the back of Senna which put him out, so that wasn't his fault.

Senna probably would have won 1994. I agree with the assertation that Benetton would not have been given Renault engines, and therefore he'd have taken 1995, 1996 and 1997 because I don't think that Hill or Villeneuve were better than him.

Given Hakkinen's and Schumacher's results for 1998, I'm inclined to think that Renault may have never bothered to buy out Benetton but strengthened their ties with Williams, and so I'd reckon that Senna may have won an extra championship - thus giving him 8.

Schumacher not once passed Senna on track, even when Senna had in theory worse machinery. That of itself says something. Senna was better than Schumacher.

Having said all of this, I still think that they were both scoundrels and cads, and that F1 is better for being rid of them (expect in the way that Senna ended his career, that's not cool at all).

[markabilly]

And how long were the qualifying stints at that moment?
It seems like he was doing plenty of qualifying laps one after the other without having to stop for fresh rubber and fuel.
Was he in that "tunnel" state also when he was in the pits?

Just a few questions that came while I was reading the above post.

he is describing it as it was some kind of superior feeling between him, the car and the circuit. I think it was all about concentration, but no way as supra natural as he was describing it. I reckon he would have been a good SF novelist!
What he was describing was being "in the zone" as they say, as in football, where one reaches a certain state of concentration and awareness of being where everything just happens. Aikman said that during his first superbowl, he was in a zone, where everything was happenning pefectly but he was not thinking about what to do at all, he was just doing it.

I read an interview with Jim Clark years ago (as in more than forty) where he said the real reason he raced was there were moments where he became one with the car, totally connected, where he did not think what he needed to do and then did it, instead he just knew it and it happened. That article left a lasting impression as to where I wanted my mental state to be when racing or doing certain other things.

Having been in that state a few times, it feels very unreal, sort of like being out of the body and in another world where there is only one thing going on, what you are doing at that moment, where you just do it without there being any forethought or concious decision, or even a concious effort to concentrate. Better than any drugs, indeed even better than kool aid...oh my brings back memoroies, oh, me to be young again, age 21........ :s mokin:

[ioan]

Senna probably would have won 1994. I agree with the assertation that Benetton would not have been given Renault engines, and therefore he'd have taken 1995, 1996 and 1997 because I don't think that Hill or Villeneuve were better than him.

Got to love the lengths some are willing to go with suppositions that never materialized.

[ioan]

And before you ask me why I think you're wrong I'll give you the answer.

You say that Senna would have won the 94 title because hill managed to get within 1 point of Schumacher.
However you completely ignore that Hill got within 1 point of Schumacher because:

1. MS was blackflaged from the British GP because he overtook Hill for a moment during the warm-up lap.
2. MS was DQ-ed from the Hungarian GP (after winning it) because of too much wear of the skidblock (although it was aparently due to a spin over the kerbs).
3. Subsequently MS was banned for 2 more races!

Do the math and see for yourself how Hill was awarded more than 30 points by the FIA, and that was the only reason he got within 1 point of MS.

Considering that Senna had 0 points when he died I find it a bit far stretched to say that he would have closed the gap to MS if not for a similar help as Hill got from the sporting authorities.

Just my opinion.

[markabilly]

All I know is that i could have won the wdc in 1993, 1994 and every year after that, no matter whether Senna lived or not, or whatever team he signed with, if I only had the right tires, right car, right engine, right engineer, right team, right track, right eye and right foot. Good thing for Schumimaker, cause otherwise no one would remember his name.....

and of course the right drink.....

[Hawkmoon]

Schumacher not once passed Senna on track, even when Senna had in theory worse machinery. That of itself says something. Senna was better than Schumacher.

There's a (or was) a video of Prost and Schumacher passing Senna at Silverstone '93 (I think it was '93!). So yes Schumacher did pass Senna on the track.

But so what? Their careers only overlapped for less than 2.5 seasons so we never had the chance to truly evaluate them against each other.

The comparison is a purely speculative one and one that is coloured largely by opinion. I think the fact that Senna was killed in the car has enhanced his reputation as has the two seasons he spent alongside Prost at McLaren. The arguments for Senna are largely intangible ones because the statistics have Schumacher winning in a landslide.

Senna was great but I think Schumacher, Prost and Clark were greater.

[Rollo]

You say that Senna would have won the 94 title because hill managed to get within 1 point of Schumacher.
However you completely ignore that Hill got within 1 point of Schumacher because:

1. MS was blackflaged from the British GP because he overtook Hill for a moment during the warm-up lap.
2. MS was DQ-ed from the Hungarian GP (after winning it) because of too much wear of the skidblock (although it was aparently due to a spin over the kerbs).
3. Subsequently MS was banned for 2 more races!

Do the math and see for yourself how Hill was awarded more than 30 points by the FIA, and that was the only reason he got within 1 point of MS.


Correct. This is the reason that Damon Hill got within a point of Schumacher. Is this in dispute? No.
Was Senna better than Hill? Absolutely. If you'd had Senna in that same car for the season instead of Hill, Senna would have **** all over Hill, Schumacher et al.

Schumacher - Brilliant Driver, Crap Car
Hill - Moderate Driver, Brilliant Car
Senna? - Brilliant Driver, Brilliant Car. And how do we know that the car was Brilliant? Hill proved it.

Or perhaps you're supposing that Senna wasn't that great?

[wedge]

And before you ask me why I think you're wrong I'll give you the answer.

You say that Senna would have won the 94 title because hill managed to get within 1 point of Schumacher.
However you completely ignore that Hill got within 1 point of Schumacher because:

1. MS was blackflaged from the British GP because he overtook Hill for a moment during the warm-up lap.
2. MS was DQ-ed from the Hungarian GP (after winning it) because of too much wear of the skidblock (although it was aparently due to a spin over the kerbs).
3. Subsequently MS was banned for 2 more races!

Do the math and see for yourself how Hill was awarded more than 30 points by the FIA, and that was the only reason he got within 1 point of MS.

Considering that Senna had 0 points when he died I find it a bit far stretched to say that he would have closed the gap to MS if not for a similar help as Hill got from the sporting authorities.

Just my opinion.

Points 2. and 3. are void.

They got rid of flat bottomed cars straight after Senna's death and introduced the plank to raise the ride height thereby reducing the tendency of the car bottoming out.

[wedge]

Correct. This is the reason that Damon Hill got within a point of Schumacher. Is this in dispute? No.
Was Senna better than Hill? Absolutely. If you'd had Senna in that same car for the season instead of Hill, Senna would have **** all over Hill, Schumacher et al.

Schumacher - Brilliant Driver, Crap Car
Hill - Moderate Driver, Brilliant Car
Senna? - Brilliant Driver, Brilliant Car. And how do we know that the car was Brilliant? Hill proved it.

Or perhaps you're supposing that Senna wasn't that great?

The 94 Williams wasn't all that brilliant. In fact it was horrible, even Senna said said so because it was extremely twitchy at the beginning of the season.

The B194 wasn't entirely crap because Senna was convinced it TC. It was never proven but rumour has it that it was Benetton's engine mapping via the fuel pump.

[Hawkmoon]

Points 2. and 3. are void.

They got rid of flat bottomed cars straight after Senna's death and introduced the plank to raise the ride height thereby reducing the tendency of the car bottoming out.

No they aren't. They explain why Hill got anywhere near Schumacher in the title race. Schumacher effectively competed in 4 less races than Hill.

Schumacher lost 8 points after he was disqualified in Britain for overtaking on the formation lap. He lost a further 10 points when he was disqualified from the Belgian GP for an illegal plank. This also saw him banned for the Italian and Portugese GPs. Schumacher directly lost 18 points and lost the chance to compete for 20 more. Schumacher should have won the title by about 30 points. I'm not trying to suggest that Schumacher was hard done by. I'm only pointing out that the title was artificially close. Of Hills 6 wins he was gifted 1 (Belgium) and won 2 others when Schumacher wasn't there.

How does this relate to Senna? I think means that Schumacher was much further ahead of Hill than the standings indictated and that Senna would have not had the title at a canter. He may have still won but he would have had to fight for it.

[ioan]

Fact is that Hill had more points than Senna when the later passed away.
Hill come within 1 point of Schumacher because he was gifted 4 races.

Senna should have been able to gather around 40 points more than Hill in normal circumstances in the remaining races to win the WDC title. I don't doubt he was better than Hill but not that good.

There was ofcourse a chance for Senna to win the 94 title but we have to objectively agree that his chances were inferior to those of Schumacher

I put the facts and the numbers on the table to support my POV.

I also fail to see why some claim that Benetton wouldn't have got Renault engines for the 95 season if Senna was still alive. It's not like if he was owning the Renault factory.

[SGWilko]

I also fail to see why some claim that Benetton wouldn't have got Renault engines for the 95 season if Senna was still alive. It's not like if he was owning the Renault factory.

Well, I think Senna was held in VERY high esteem by engine manufacturers. I recall a documentary or similar once about senna in '93, when McLaren ran the Ford engine, as a customer. He pushed Ford, against Benettons best efforts (who had the works deal) to get same spec engines, I think he did it too. (he was beating them on occasion with a less powerful engine.....)

I also recall on that program he was adamant that his race engine, on one occasion (in warm up) was making a noise, the Ford guys said nothing wrong, but Ayrton insisted they change it. He got his way, when the engine was opened up, there was a component that was fatigued.

Now, what may have happened in '95 no one knows, but I do think Ayrton would have pushed Renault VERY hard to concentrate on one team.

Also, the '94 Williams was a real truck at the start of the year, but development on it was fast and furious, and it was the class of the field by end of the season.

It is still all if's and buts though. Makes for a great thread nonetheless!

[ioan]

Well, I think Senna was held in VERY high esteem by engine manufacturers. I recall a documentary or similar once about senna in '93, when McLaren ran the Ford engine, as a customer. He pushed Ford, against Benettons best efforts (who had the works deal) to get same spec engines, I think he did it too. (he was beating them on occasion with a less powerful engine.....)

I also recall on that program he was adamant that his race engine, on one occasion (in warm up) was making a noise, the Ford guys said nothing wrong, but Ayrton insisted they change it. He got his way, when the engine was opened up, there was a component that was fatigued.

Now, what may have happened in '95 no one knows, but I do think Ayrton would have pushed Renault VERY hard to concentrate on one team.

Also, the '94 Williams was a real truck at the start of the year, but development on it was fast and furious, and it was the class of the field by end of the season.

It is still all if's and buts though. Makes for a great thread nonetheless!

Unless Senna was going to buy himself the engines offered to Benetton to cover Renault's expenses there was no way he could stop them to sell the engines to whomever they wanted to.

[N. Jones]

As my signature once said - Schumacher = Senna. They were both aggressive, take-no-prisoners, I am going to win EVERY race type of people. They also were both absolutely unafraid of the rain and they both loved a challenge.

The only difference between them (well, the way I see it, but what do I know?) is that Senna was more personable that Schumacher was. This I think, is why the media seemed to write nicer things about AS than MS.

[Osella]

I agree with the assertation that Benetton would not have been given Renault engines, and therefore he'd have taken 1995, 1996 and 1997 because I don't think that Hill or Villeneuve were better than him.


Actually, the deal for Benetton to run Renault engines in 1995 was concluded pretty early, and related to Cyril De Rouvre, then owner of Ligier (powered by Renault) being imprisoned in France for tax fraud. The team was then bought by Flavio Briatore/TWR group, and he swiftly concluded a deal with Renault for the Benetton engine supply, the supposition being that this would then give both Ligier and Benetton the Renault engines, leaving Williams with the Ford V8's..

Briatore assumed that the French would not abandon their own team, but reckoned without Renault's marketing, they realised that it was a virtual guarantee that Williams or Benetton would win in 1995, and so Ligier were left running customer Mugen-Honda engines (and necessitating a hasty redesign of the chassis!), and Ford ended up at Sauber, having not realised Flavio wasn't bluffing... So I think it's a pretty safe bet that Benetton would and could not have had that engine deal denied to them, especially when you consider Flav's obvious Renault connections from that point on via Mechachrome, and eventually buying the team wholesale!

[Sirius]

Schumacher, certainly in his Ferrari era, was more analytical and served to bond the team in a way which set new standards; but question marks still exist about his outright speed.

It is this particular point that I think was Schumacher's greatest strength. There has been no one to my mind that could galvanise a team together like Michael could for all those years. Simply remarkable!

And yes...his outright speed will always be a contentious issue with me as well.

Sirius

[wedge]

Actually, the deal for Benetton to run Renault engines in 1995 was concluded pretty early, and related to Cyril De Rouvre, then owner of Ligier (powered by Renault) being imprisoned in France for tax fraud. The team was then bought by Flavio Briatore/TWR group, and he swiftly concluded a deal with Renault for the Benetton engine supply, the supposition being that this would then give both Ligier and Benetton the Renault engines, leaving Williams with the Ford V8's..

Briatore assumed that the French would not abandon their own team, but reckoned without Renault's marketing, they realised that it was a virtual guarantee that Williams or Benetton would win in 1995, and so Ligier were left running customer Mugen-Honda engines (and necessitating a hasty redesign of the chassis!), and Ford ended up at Sauber, having not realised Flavio wasn't bluffing... So I think it's a pretty safe bet that Benetton would and could not have had that engine deal denied to them, especially when you consider Flav's obvious Renault connections from that point on via Mechachrome, and eventually buying the team wholesale!

Good point, forgotten about that.

1995 would've been an interesting political year though I don't remember ill feeling regarding unequal engine supply from Renault.

Both Senna and Schumi would've demanded up-to-date upgrades which usually go to one driver.

[SGWilko]

It is this particular point that I think was Schumacher's greatest strength. There has been no one to my mind that could galvanise a team together like Michael could for all those years. Simply remarkable!
Sirius

That actually is a very good point. What was Senna's last year with McLaren, '93 right? Didn't he sap every penny out of the team on his $1M a race demands (I recall a story told by Ron, where Ayrton asked why development was slow, Ron had to tell hime that all the cash went on Ayrton's salary!), not showing up until the last minute to make his point. That is not the trait of a 'team player'.

[ioan]

And what about punching a fellow competitor because he dared to unlap himslef? :eek:

[THE_LIBERATOR]

I also fail to see why some claim that Benetton wouldn't have got Renault engines for the 95 season if Senna was still alive. It's not like if he was owning the Renault factory.The speculation there is that after a successful season of relationship building, & a potential world championship, Senna may have had the sway over Renault. I'm sure he would have at least tried to block the deal. We can't know.

Please don't confuse speculation with facts, & speculative stats with real ones.

[THE_LIBERATOR]

And what about punching a fellow competitor because he dared to unlap himslef? :eek: If anyone deserved a slap it was Irvine.

No-one except persons present is really sure what went on, there is a tape of the incident apparently, love to hear it.

[markabilly]

And what about punching a fellow competitor because he dared to unlap himslef? :eek:

Please pick the difference between Senna and Freddie, if Senna had been the teamate instead of Freddie, during the pitstop qualifying fiasco, what Senna would have done different if anything:
1) smiled and said, "please I will happily be your number 2 and follow you, Mr. Hamilton-please forgive me"
2) Pointed to his laptop and said, "oh please Mr. Dennis, if you do not make him stop being so mean to me, I am going to hit myself in the head with my laptop until I am blind or dead"
3) invited Hamster to his hotel room to play computer games
4) sent Hamster flying off the track in such fashion that would have made the Prost bumps look unnoteworthy
5) bitchslapped him down long before so it would have never happenned
6) bitchslapped RD five grid places
7) not visited Hamster in the hospital after the surgery to remove the computer game mysteriously found buried deep inside the body of Hamster

:vader:

[ioan]

No-one except persons present is really sure what went on,...
Than why do you believe that:


If anyone deserved a slap it was Irvine.

:?:


...there is a tape of the incident apparently, love to hear it.

There was a transcript of that tape on the net. I read it a few years ago, and believe me you don't want to read it cause you will realize what kind of man Senna really was (ie the Bibendum is nothing compared to Senna's inflated ego ;) ).

[ShiftingGears]

If anyone deserved a slap it was Irvine.


No way. He was racing, and being impeded by Senna.

[Rollo]

Considering that Senna had 0 points when he died I find it a bit far stretched to say that he would have closed the gap to MS if not for a similar help as Hill got from the sporting authorities.


If Senna had finished the race where he was, he would have scored 10 points for the win and would have been chasing down a gap of 16 over the remainder of the season. Was Senna capable of doing that? My word yes.
Bear in mind that there would have been two Williams and not one, so the number of wins that Schumacher would have scored in the first place would have been less - apart from Schumacher and Hill, only one other driver actually won in 1994. Also bear in mind that Senna scored 5 wins in 1993 in a **** of a car against both Prost and Hill in superior machinery.

And yes, we need to make assumptions for history that doesn't exist. I note that you've put forward not alternative suggestions yet.

[ioan]

If Senna had finished the race where he was, he would have scored 10 points for the win and would have been chasing down a gap of 16 over the remainder of the season. Was Senna capable of doing that? My word yes.
Bear in mind that there would have been two Williams and not one, so the number of wins that Schumacher would have scored in the first place would have been less - apart from Schumacher and Hill, only one other driver actually won in 1994. Also bear in mind that Senna scored 5 wins in 1993 in a **** of a car against both Prost and Hill in superior machinery.

And yes, we need to make assumptions for history that doesn't exist. I note that you've put forward not alternative suggestions yet.

Senna qualified in front of MS (and was pretty sure of winning) just to finish behind him (and out of the race too, even due to driver error) in both races before of that, what's there to support your belief that we would have been able to stay in front of Schumacher in Imola? The fact that he won races in 93?! Sorry but that is far from enough.

[ShiftingGears]

Senna was a top driver. Schumacher beat him in Brazil and Hakkinen spun him at Tanaka International Circuit. It is a fair assumption that Senna could've won Imola - he was a brilliant driver!

[Rollo]

what's there to support your belief that we would have been able to stay in front of Schumacher in Imola? The fact that he won races in 93?! Sorry but that is far from enough.

What indeed? Prove otherwise... hmm?

The fact that he was a three times world champion and was leading the GP? Had set the fastest lap in qualifying and had pulled out nearly 7 seconds and was still pulling away? Sorry, if that race had gone to completion, Senna would have not only won the race but possibly lapped everyone up to 3rd. Only five cars were on the lead lap at the time of the accident.

http://www.grandprix.com/gpe/rr551.html

I think my belief is not only well supported, but proven with fact.

[ioan]

What indeed? Prove otherwise... hmm?

The fact that he was a three times world champion and was leading the GP? Had set the fastest lap in qualifying and had pulled out nearly 7 seconds and was still pulling away? Sorry, if that race had gone to completion, Senna would have not only won the race but possibly lapped everyone up to 3rd. Only five cars were on the lead lap at the time of the accident.

http://www.grandprix.com/gpe/rr551.html

I think my belief is not only well supported, but proven with fact.

He did qualify first in the first 2 races too! Did he win? No.
Your points are mute, but you still go as far as saying he would have lapped everyone up to 3rd!
If you ask me that is far from reasonable, it's just wishful thinking from a fanatic. :rolleyes:

Almost forgot, what exactly is that fact that proves that he would have won not only won but also lapped the field up to 3rd???

[SGWilko]

What indeed? Prove otherwise... hmm?

The fact that he was a three times world champion and was leading the GP? Had set the fastest lap in qualifying and had pulled out nearly 7 seconds and was still pulling away? Sorry, if that race had gone to completion, Senna would have not only won the race but possibly lapped everyone up to 3rd. Only five cars were on the lead lap at the time of the accident.

http://www.grandprix.com/gpe/rr551.html

I think my belief is not only well supported, but proven with fact.

How can there have been so few cars on the lead lap, considering they had only just come out of a SC period?

[rabf1]

If I had an F1 team and could sign either MS or Senna in their prime, it would probably be Senna.

[Zico]

Good thread..

If the term "greatest driver" encompasses not only analytical and tactical brilliance but allows the flaws of zero sportsmanship, doing whatever it takes within and outwith the rules to win.. and building a team around himself to achieve what he did statistically, then it has to be Schumacher.

If we are talking about out and out raw talent over a lap then I think it has to be Ayrton.

As someone else said... Apples and oranges.

[markabilly]

If I had an F1 team and could sign either MS or Senna in their prime, it would probably be Senna.

Hey if all i had was Nick Heidfeldt, I would be thrilled to sign Freddie A.!!!!!!!!

besides Senna was a bit more mercenary than MS and MS was probably much nicer and more pleasant to his "bosses".... :D so you might want to think about that if you were the boss ........ but sign either one and you got a winner

[markabilly]

Good thread..

If the term "greatest driver" encompasses not only analytical and tactical brilliance but allows the flaws of zero sportsmanship, doing whatever it takes within and outwith the rules to win.. and building a team around himself to achieve what he did statistically, then it has to be Schumacher.

If we are talking about out and out raw talent over a lap then I think it has to be Ayrton.

As someone else said... Apples and oranges.
You might say: "If we are talking about out and out raw talent over a lap with the same or far worse flaws in sportsmanship, then I think it has to be Ayrton", I would agree!!!

[Rollo]

If you ask me that is far from reasonable, it's just wishful thinking from a fanatic. :rolleyes:

Me a fanatic of Senna? :rotflmao: 'tis to laugh. I thought the man was scum.


In 1990 Senna deliberately drove into him (Prost) thus endangering his life and stealing the World Championship by criminal and unfair means.
http://www.motorsportforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=120884&highlight=criminal

And to answer a previous post from you no less:

And no one talks aout how Senna and Prost unfairly won WDC titles!So in the end will be only the statistics, and guess who is at the top of the list?! :D


...on both occasions I would have shredded their licences and given them a two year driving ban for culpable driving with intent to menace. Schumacher and Senna are both cut of the same cloth - win at all costs including underhandedness and ignobleness.

Having said this, Schumacher's skill was probably the fourth greatest of all time and the only driver to have had a full F1 career played out to determine this.
http://www.motorsportforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=123218&page=3&highlight=Senna

Fanatic, moi? No way. Both Senna and Schumacher were dastardly drivers, surrendering nothing but both supremely quick. My opinion of both of their characters as displayed on track is poor. If you choose the lesser of two evils, you still end up picking an evil.

[ioan]

OK, maybe I exaggerated, I'll reduce that to fan. ;)
Still it was wishful thinking. :p :

[GingerLynn]

Senna was one of the best drivers in terms of getting a team behind him. He managed to push Prost out and then keep him from coming back to the sport in 1994 with Williams. By 1991 it was clear that you could not compete with Senna if you were his teammate.

However in 1994 the rules changed. Schumacher was just as good at getting a team behind him but even better at that by including his teammate - not alienating them and causing rifts in the team itself. Collectively this provided for quite the effort at Benetton which was clear in Brazil 94...

So what's the difference between Prost and Schumacher? Schumacher is not on Senna's team. There was physically no way for Senna to play the mental games he did with Prost - same games which precluded Prost from upping with Williams for 94.

Nope - this time it was driver against driver. The politicing had nothing to do with it and for all reasons Williams had an incredible edge! In fact Autosport, F1 and Racer all declared Senna/Williams the Champions even before the season started.

Clearly the engineering staff @ Benetton won the battle. But that's not the topic. IMO Schumacher one as well.

For Senna there was always this sort of "You owe it too me" attitude. We saw it in Japan 1990 and many - many times on the track. He'd be out by laps with everyone out of it and just crash someone he thought should simply get out of the way because he was Senna. Remember Monza 1988?

WOW :eek:

There were also Brazil 1990 and a host of other instances where he threw it away. Varsha mentioned (along with Hobbs) in 1991 when discussing World Driving Champions, that "You don't often here of Senna's name being mentioned amonsgt the greats" specifically because of this inability to win when he had it in the bag on so many occasions.

Maybe it was Schumacher's Germanic coldness which reserved him but he did keep his cool with exception to 94 and 96 when he punted Hill and later Villeneuve from the track. I guess in that case both drivers were brats... But how many really are not?

IMO Senna's legend lived on more so after his death and was augmented greatly by the gaping hole he left behind - which was Gerhard Berger who amassed only 8 wins... Looking back against 4 titles from Prost, 1 from Mansell, 3 from Piquet and 3 from Senna - effectively all running at relatively the same period in time.

That gap - IMO, helped to bolster Senna's legend because not like before - when all those champions were racing, Senna defined F1. He was the driver who would pass the tourch on to the next generation - Schumacher. When that was all removed it shocked everyone and blew Senna's legend to even greater levels of popularity.

My 2 cents :D

[tinchote]

If Senna had finished the race where he was, he would have scored 10 points for the win and would have been chasing down a gap of 16 over the remainder of the season. Was Senna capable of doing that? My word yes.
Bear in mind that there would have been two Williams and not one, so the number of wins that Schumacher would have scored in the first place would have been less - apart from Schumacher and Hill, only one other driver actually won in 1994. Also bear in mind that Senna scored 5 wins in 1993 in a **** of a car against both Prost and Hill in superior machinery.

And yes, we need to make assumptions for history that doesn't exist. I note that you've put forward not alternative suggestions yet.

To say "if Senna had finished at Imola" is no different than saying "if he would have finished all three races". Fact is that at Imola he lost the race when his car - be it car failure or driver mistake - went out of the track. The fatality was that he got killed in the process. But he was already out of the race, and no one but himself or his car caused it.

[markabilly]

Senna was one of the best drivers in terms of getting a team behind him. He managed to push Prost out and then keep him from coming back to the sport in 1994 with Williams. By 1991 it was clear that you could not compete with Senna if you were his teammate.

However in 1994 the rules changed. Schumacher was just as good at getting a team behind him but even better at that by including his teammate - not alienating them and causing rifts in the team itself. Collectively this provided for quite the effort at Benetton which was clear in Brazil 94...

So what's the difference between Prost and Schumacher? Schumacher is not on Senna's team. There was physically no way for Senna to play the mental games he did with Prost - same games which precluded Prost from upping with Williams for 94.

Nope - this time it was driver against driver. The politicing had nothing to do with it and for all reasons Williams had an incredible edge! In fact Autosport, F1 and Racer all declared Senna/Williams the Champions even before the season started.

Clearly the engineering staff @ Benetton won the battle. But that's not the topic. IMO Schumacher one as well.

For Senna there was always this sort of "You owe it too me" attitude. We saw it in Japan 1990 and many - many times on the track. He'd be out by laps with everyone out of it and just crash someone he thought should simply get out of the way because he was Senna. Remember Monza 1988?

WOW :eek:

There were also Brazil 1990 and a host of other instances where he threw it away. Varsha mentioned (along with Hobbs) in 1991 when discussing World Driving Champions, that "You don't often here of Senna's name being mentioned amonsgt the greats" specifically because of this inability to win when he had it in the bag on so many occasions.

Maybe it was Schumacher's Germanic coldness which reserved him but he did keep his cool with exception to 94 and 96 when he punted Hill and later Villeneuve from the track. I guess in that case both drivers were brats... But how many really are not?

IMO Senna's legend lived on more so after his death and was augmented greatly by the gaping hole he left behind - which was Gerhard Berger who amassed only 8 wins... Looking back against 4 titles from Prost, 1 from Mansell, 3 from Piquet and 3 from Senna - effectively all running at relatively the same period in time.

That gap - IMO, helped to bolster Senna's legend because not like before - when all those champions were racing, Senna defined F1. He was the driver who would pass the tourch on to the next generation - Schumacher. When that was all removed it shocked everyone and blew Senna's legend to even greater levels of popularity.

My 2 cents :D
For post number 14 or not post number 14 (based on your signature), still worth far more than 2 cents :D

Of course in eyes of many around here, you have sinned my not whispering the name Senna...... :rolleyes: ......., besides I always figured that MS learned his punting from Senna, but was just never managed to do it quite as spectacular

[Zico]

You might say: "If we are talking about out and out raw talent over a lap with the same or far worse flaws in sportsmanship, then I think it has to be Ayrton", I would agree!!!

Yep, you are correct.. I think I'd forgotten how volatile a character he actually was. :)

[SGWilko]

There are more similarities between Ayrton and Michael than there are differences.

They were both devastatingly confident in the wet. (Ayrton at Donnington in 93 and Schumi at Spain in 96)

They both made unforced errors. (Ayrton Monaco erm, 87,88 or 89 - can't remember, and Schumi Adelaide 94)

They were supremely confident, to the point of being arrogant (on the track certainly, no idea about in person).

They wanted one thing, and one thing only, to win.

To be honest, I don't think you can really seperate them.

One thing I will say in Ayrton's favour, is his philosophy on team mates. In 'The Life of Senna' there is a section on Lotus. Ayrton vetoed Derek Warwick being his teammate. Not because he was afraid of him, but because he knew Lotus could not competetively field two good drivers. I guess that is a back handed compliment to Derek.

As to Michael, since Herbet was his teammate, it appears (careful use of that word) he has not wanted a competetive teammate. Now, that is not dissimilar to the Ayrton at Lotus scenario, but for who's gain was it?

I'm not bashing, just provoking the debate.......

[GingerLynn]

There are more similarities between Ayrton and Michael than there are differences.

They were both devastatingly confident in the wet. (Ayrton at Donnington in 93 and Schumi at Spain in 96)

They both made unforced errors. (Ayrton Monaco erm, 87,88 or 89 - can't remember, and Schumi Adelaide 94)

They were supremely confident, to the point of being arrogant (on the track certainly, no idea about in person).

They wanted one thing, and one thing only, to win.

To be honest, I don't think you can really seperate them.

One thing I will say in Ayrton's favour, is his philosophy on team mates. In 'The Life of Senna' there is a section on Lotus. Ayrton vetoed Derek Warwick being his teammate. Not because he was afraid of him, but because he knew Lotus could not competetively field two good drivers. I guess that is a back handed compliment to Derek.

As to Michael, since Herbet was his teammate, it appears (careful use of that word) he has not wanted a competetive teammate. Now, that is not dissimilar to the Ayrton at Lotus scenario, but for who's gain was it?

I'm not bashing, just provoking the debate.......

There is another difference between your scenario however. When Senna was at his prime the main objective of a team was to get the two best drivers in the market and field them. This of course worked well at Williams with Patrese and Mansell/Hill and Prost and of course at Ferrari with Berger/Mansell, Berger/Alesi - and surprisingly well at McLaren with Berger/Senna. In fact there were only 2 occasions were we saw problems and that was at McLaren with Senna/Prost and a very minor rift at Ferrari with Mansell/Prost which eventually precluded Prost from running at Williams in the 1992 season.

Benetton (along with Schumacher) usered in the new philosophy however. Put all your eggs in one basket and get a patsy driver to support that basket (Schumacher)... This of course followed through right into Ferrari and has now permeated into many other teams.

Was not the case years prior however.

[Osella]

Hmmm, what about the team-mates at McLaren in '87 (Prost), Lotus in '85-'89 (Senna/Piquet), Williams in '91/92(Mansell), McLaren in '91-93 (Senna) etc..

Never mind the smaller teams such as Jordan, Leyton House, Minardi, Fondmetal, etc who only had the money to run one good/promising driver and a renta-driver..

To suggest Williams ever thought of going for the championship with Patrese, McLaren with Berger or Ferrari with Capelli is laughable (good backup though they undoubtedly were). They were just there as support acts. And to suggest that Lehto and Barrichello were picked up as patsys is pretty disingenuous to their talents and the way they were viewed at the time as promising talents. Lehto and Hakkinen were both picked up by top teams at around the same time and were thought of as pretty equal until that point.

Senna vetoed anyone he thought was quick (Derek Warwick) and Lotus signed Nakajima later to pay the bills... Schumacher was paired with Martin Brundle (World Sportscar champion and near equal of Senna in F3, that wasn't just so he could play lapdog, nor did he...!) Flavio realised however that to launch a championship challenge their (relatively) small (read:lower-budget) team had to concentrate around their best asset - Schumacher. Hardly a dissimilar case to McLaren in 1992/93 when Senna drove for them...

So really when Senna was in his 'prime', top teams were signing Stefan Johansson, a tired-out Rosberg (who had to be forced to drive for McLaren until the end of the season in '86!), Berger (who was a newcomer in '86/'87!), Thierry Boutsen, Satoru Nakajima, Emmanuele Pirro, Ivan Capelli, and Roberto Moreno! So in reality, things were just the same back then in many ways too...

[Osella]

P.S. Intelligence is generally only measured by your post count in the Champ Car forum, as you may well know ;) Round here it's good posts which count ;)

[GingerLynn]

Hmmm, what about the team-mates at McLaren in '87 (Prost), Lotus in '85-'89 (Senna/Piquet), Williams in '91/92(Mansell), McLaren in '91-93 (Senna) etc..

Never mind the smaller teams such as Jordan, Leyton House, Minardi, Fondmetal, etc who only had the money to run one good/promising driver and a renta-driver..

To suggest Williams ever thought of going for the championship with Patrese, McLaren with Berger or Ferrari with Capelli is laughable (good backup though they undoubtedly were). They were just there as support acts. And to suggest that Lehto and Barrichello were picked up as patsys is pretty disingenuous to their talents and the way they were viewed at the time as promising talents. Lehto and Hakkinen were both picked up by top teams at around the same time and were thought of as pretty equal until that point.

Senna vetoed anyone he thought was quick (Derek Warwick) and Lotus signed Nakajima later to pay the bills... Schumacher was paired with Martin Brundle (World Sportscar champion and near equal of Senna in F3, that wasn't just so he could play lapdog, nor did he...!) Flavio realised however that to launch a championship challenge their (relatively) small (read:lower-budget) team had to concentrate around their best asset - Schumacher. Hardly a dissimilar case to McLaren in 1992/93 when Senna drove for them...

So really when Senna was in his 'prime', top teams were signing Stefan Johansson, a tired-out Rosberg (who had to be forced to drive for McLaren until the end of the season in '86!), Berger (who was a newcomer in '86/'87!), Thierry Boutsen, Satoru Nakajima, Emmanuele Pirro, Ivan Capelli, and Roberto Moreno! So in reality, things were just the same back then in many ways too...

Agreed however teams generally shot for the best drivers they could get. Rarely was a Prost, Mansell, Senna, Piquet available for 1 team. The next best drivers were the Bergers Alesi and Patrese.

They were far better skilled and a closer match to their teamates then Barichello, Salo, Irvine, Massa and so on. Clearly the last 10 years have been an obvious attempt for many top teams to get a driver to simply support their #1.

BTW - Great handle!

[GingerLynn]

P.S. Intelligence is generally only measured by your post count in the Champ Car forum, as you may well know ;) Round here it's good posts which count ;)

You bet - exactly who I am catering to :)

[Rudy Tamasz]

P.S. Intelligence is generally only measured by your post count in the Champ Car forum, as you may well know

Excuse me?

[ioan]

Excuse me?

Excused!

[arcanox]

Senna was better than Schumacher. MS had the advantage of ferrary. We know that Ferrary team had the technology in his car to win very far away over others teams. When a racer signs with Ferrary, the racer has the obligation to win the titles of F1. Remember Senna didn't run with Ferrary. In my opinion to be racer in the age of Senna needed one extraordinary talent, the cars didn't have the technology than teams today offer. MS must be very grateful for the titles gaves for Ferray.

[GingerLynn]

Senna was better than Schumacher. MS had the advantage of ferrary. We know that Ferrary team had the technology in his car to win very far away over others teams. When a racer signs with Ferrary, the racer has the obligation to win the titles of F1. Remember Senna didn't run with Ferrary. In my opinion to be racer in the age of Senna needed one extraordinary talent, the cars didn't have the technology than teams today offer. MS must be very grateful for the titles gaves for Ferray.

This board needs drug tests :up:

[Zico]

I agree. Arcanox.. they were both decent enough drivers in their day but Ferray was far better than both of them, Ill never forget the 1-2 he helped give Honda at Montoya.

[GingerLynn]

Schumacher built Benetton and later Ferrari... The testing that Berger and Alesi had done year prior was nothing!

Since when did Senna ever build a team that was as solid for so long as Schumacher.

MS perfected the political game way beyond what Senna could imagine. He also never screwed up as much.

Schumacher hands down...

Prost on the other hand would have been more of a challenge... Not the internal drive as Senna but a technical skill well beyond any driver of his or the current generation.

[Ranger]

Schumacher built Benetton and later Ferrari... The testing that Berger and Alesi had done year prior was nothing!

I would say Jean Todt was the most instrumental in building Ferrari. In 1991 and 1992 they won nothing. He joined in 1993 and they moved significantly up the standings. In Canada 1995 they were leading the standings. To say Schumacher built Ferrari is a little short-sighted, though he was a substantial piece of that puzzle.


Since when did Senna ever build a team that was as solid for so long as Schumacher.
See above. Considering Senna's career lasted less time than Schumacher's tenure at Ferrari then of course Schumacher is the logical answer. Senna did help construct the McHonda partnership though, which was dominant for 4 years as opposed to the 5 title years at Ferrari with Schu. (see below)


MS perfected the political game way beyond what Senna could imagine. He also never screwed up as much.

What political game? Senna was an integral part of securing the rather exclusive McLaren-Honda partnership which was pretty much the most dominant combination ever, considering it lasted 5 years with 8 titles before Honda left F1.
Schumacher on the other hand helped secure Bridgestones and preferential treatment by his team and by Bridgestone for his team, and several important tech figures.

If thats not what you mean by the political game then I'm stumped. And that's barely one-sided.


Schumacher hands down...
Yeah, probably Schumacher. But I'd say its much closer than what you infer.

[ioan]

Senna was better than Schumacher. MS had the advantage of ferrary. We know that Ferrary team had the technology in his car to win very far away over others teams. When a racer signs with Ferrary, the racer has the obligation to win the titles of F1. Remember Senna didn't run with Ferrary. In my opinion to be racer in the age of Senna needed one extraordinary talent, the cars didn't have the technology than teams today offer. MS must be very grateful for the titles gaves for Ferray.

What about his titles won with Benetton was it also due to Ferrari? (notice the way you should spell that right?!)

[ioan]

I would say Jean Todt was the most instrumental in building Ferrari. In 1991 and 1992 they won nothing. He joined in 1993 and they moved significantly up the standings. In Canada 1995 they were leading the standings. To say Schumacher built Ferrari is a little short-sighted, though he was a substantial piece of that puzzle.

I have to agree, the one that started the Ferrari revival is Jean Todt.

[Garry Walker]

Schumacher not once passed Senna on track, even when Senna had in theory worse machinery. That of itself says something. Senna was better than Schumacher.


Bull****. Spa 1992, Barcelona 1992 (or 1991, I dont remember anymore which year), Silverstone 1993, Kyalami 1993, Magny-cours 1993, spa 1993. Times when Schumacher made an on-track pass on Senna, that wasnt due to pitstop.
Now bring me examples of Senna passing Schumacher on track.


And before you ask me why I think you're wrong I'll give you the answer.

You say that Senna would have won the 94 title because hill managed to get within 1 point of Schumacher.
However you completely ignore that Hill got within 1 point of Schumacher because:

1. MS was blackflaged from the British GP because he overtook Hill for a moment during the warm-up lap.
2. MS was DQ-ed from the Hungarian GP (after winning it) because of too much wear of the skidblock (although it was aparently due to a spin over the kerbs).
3. Subsequently MS was banned for 2 more races!

Do the math and see for yourself how Hill was awarded more than 30 points by the FIA, and that was the only reason he got within 1 point of MS.

Considering that Senna had 0 points when he died I find it a bit far stretched to say that he would have closed the gap to MS if not for a similar help as Hill got from the sporting authorities.

Just my opinion.

It is fair to say that had Sennas car not failed at Imola, and had Schumacher still gotten those penalties, Senna would have taken the title as he was clearly much better than Hill. But without Schumachers penalties, Senna wouldnt have had a chance, in my view.


And what about punching a fellow competitor because he dared to unlap himslef? :eek:

Irvine behaved like a moron on that day, both off-track and on-track, and deserved that hit. Just like Schumacher should have hit DC in the face at Spa in 1998.


No way. He was racing, and being impeded by Senna.
Please wake up to reality.


Senna qualified in front of MS (and was pretty sure of winning) just to finish behind him (and out of the race too, even due to driver error) in both races before of that, what's there to support your belief that we would have been able to stay in front of Schumacher in Imola? The fact that he won races in 93?! Sorry but that is far from enough.
What I think about Imola, is that the tracks characteristics played into Williams` car advantages, their power advantage. Had Sennas car not failed, I reckon it would have been pretty hard for Schumacher to beat him, but there would have been a possibility. Both Interlagos and especially Aida suited Williams less than Imola did and Benetton more than Imola did.


What indeed? Prove otherwise... hmm?

The fact that he was a three times world champion and was leading the GP? Had set the fastest lap in qualifying and had pulled out nearly 7 seconds and was still pulling away? Sorry, if that race had gone to completion, Senna would have not only won the race but possibly lapped everyone up to 3rd. Only five cars were on the lead lap at the time of the accident.

http://www.grandprix.com/gpe/rr551.html

I think my belief is not only well supported, but proven with fact.
What fanboy gaga is this what you are spreading?
Senna was less than 1 second ahead of Schumacher when his car failed, not 7.
The crash happened on the 7th lap, out of which 5 had been SC laps, so do make me laugh and tell me how was it possible that only 5 cars were on the lead lap (hint - what you said was a LIE).
Additionally, Senna had taken poles in the last 2 races before that too, but that didnt help him to win them, did it?
Proven with a fact? I think what you wrote was one of those posts which had nothing to do with reality and everything to do with fanboyism.

[ioan]

Irvine behaved like a moron on that day, both off-track and on-track, and deserved that hit. Just like Schumacher should have hit DC in the face at Spa in 1998.

I strongly disagree.
Irvine didn't cause any accident by unlapping himself.
Senna couldn't accept that he was passed on track by a fairly unknown (at that time) driver.

As for DC's Spa brain fade I can only say that I'm happy that MS didn't hit him even if what DC did ultimately cost MS the championship that season.

[arcanox]

MS won two tittle with out Ferrary and the others 5?

1994 Michael Schumacher Benetton B194/Ford Zetec
1995 Michael Schumacher Benetton B195/Renault
1996 Damon Hill Williams FW18/Renault
1997 Jacques Villeneuve Williams FW19/Renault
1998 Mika Häkkinen McLaren MP4/13/Mercedes
1999 Mika Häkkinen McLaren MP4/14/Mercedes
2000 Michael Schumacher Ferrari F2000

After 1995 MS had to hope five years to win the next tittle, this is when Ferrari could find a excellent car, remember that Ferrari hadn't won the racer tittles since 1979, however the team won the constructor champion in 1999 one year before MS got his third champion.

. I agree with:

Originally Posted by Malllen View Post
I would say Jean Todt was the most instrumental in building Ferrari. In 1991 and 1992 they won nothing. He joined in 1993 and they moved significantly up the standings. In Canada 1995 they were leading the standings. To say Schumacher built Ferrari is a little short-sighted, though he was a substantial piece of that puzzle.

But the thread is not about the mayor number of tittles if not about the talent, for my, Senna is the best, Senna drove with out electronic helps, traction control and the systems of security wasn't too good for these seasons.

[ioan]

MS won two tittle with out Ferrary and the others 5?

1994 Michael Schumacher Benetton B194/Ford Zetec
1995 Michael Schumacher Benetton B195/Renault
1996 Damon Hill Williams FW18/Renault
1997 Jacques Villeneuve Williams FW19/Renault
1998 Mika Häkkinen McLaren MP4/13/Mercedes
1999 Mika Häkkinen McLaren MP4/14/Mercedes
2000 Michael Schumacher Ferrari F2000

After 1995 MS had to hope five years to win the next tittle, this is when Ferrari could find a excellent car, remember that Ferrari hadn't won the racer tittles since 1979, however the team won the constructor champion in 1999 one year before MS got his third champion.

MS came within 1 point of winning it in 97, a few points in 98 and only a broken leg stopped him from winning it in 99.
So he was in contention 1 year after he switched to Ferrari!

[wedge]

Irvine behaved like a moron on that day, both off-track and on-track, and deserved that hit. Just like Schumacher should have hit DC in the face at Spa in 1998.

....Please wake up to reality.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HL79Io4htbw

Irvine was racing with Hill for position.

If Irvine was supposedly in the wrong then so was Hill for holding up Senna. :rolleyes:

[ShiftingGears]

Please wake up to reality.


Did you even watch the race?

[SGWilko]

only a broken leg stopped him from winning it in 99.


Well, isn't that a similar (in some ways) situation as in '94, whereby logic has it that had he not died, Ayrton would have taken the title....

[BDunnell]

Truth is that a meaningful comparison is impossible, just as it is between Schumacher and Fangio, Senna and Clark, etc. Bare statistics are simply not enough.

[Osella]

Hmm, I think perhaps we are missing some of the point here...?
Surely Seaman, Rosemeyer, Renault or some other such driver is 'the best' if we judge drivers talents based on how unsafe/technologically decrepid their cars were...? That whole aspect must be discounted in this case surely, unless anyone actually believes that if Spa 2000 had been Spa 1967 then Schumacher wouldn't have done exactly the same?

All this 'things were different back then' rubbish is precisely that:rubbish! In the 70's people hated the blatant commercialism of F1 and harked back to the 'gentlemanly' days of the 50's, as we now view the 70's! Jack Brabham, amongst others, was well known for corner-cutting in order to drag dirt onto the track and flick stones up at the oncoming driver's faces, so anyone who is going to argue that Schumacher or Senna are not the greatest on ground of being 'unsporting' is being narrow-minded. As I have said though, Suzuka 1990 was a travesty and should not have been allowed to pass without major punishment. Michael has never to my knowledge deliberately planned to take such an action and carry it through.

But to say he is less talented than Senna due to only driving 'safe' 'easy' cars is rubbish too. He drove a 1983 Turbo Ferrari at Imola 4 years ago and said he would not have liked to race it, but you can be damn sure he would have done had he been racing at that time! As already said, he beat Senna on many occasions in a sequential stick-shift, non-traction controlled, Ford HB-V8 powered open-sided cockpit Benetton in 1992...not bad for his first full season..

The guy still races karts for fun; how technologically advanced is that!?

And yet he still beat every single driver who drove in F1 for five years running! Seriously, that's something. Add that to his previous titles in '94 and '95 (where, really, he made F1 look far too easy and far too much fun!)

As mentioned before, statistics are not enough to judge who is the best, however they do provide (in this case) an interesting backup and a good hint towards how good a driver was, that's for sure!

As I have said before, I think Michael's sheer relentless race paces lap after lap, added to the fact that he was also, realistically, a damn good qualifier too and that he maintained this level for years and years (never had an off-season, even in 2005 he pulled races and performances out of the bag you would not expect from any other driver, even on their best days!) So to maintain that level for 8 years in terms of challenging for titles is pretty exceptional. Also Michael won races in 15 consecutive seasons! (Another record) and I honestly don't think we will ever see another driver pull off that feat..

But it was the fact he was always a threat, every race, every season from 1993 to 2006, and that's pretty damn amazing. To say this is all down to Ferrari is just wrong.. I know of no other driver who would regularly stay at the track on a race weekend until late at night, and the sheer drive and determination, added to the obviously huge driving talent makes Schumacher better than Senna, and better than any other F1 driver in my opinion.

Would you ever have seen Michael holding a team to ransom and then mess them about until 4 hours before qualifying as to whether he was going to drive for them that weekend!?! (Imola, 1993).. No, I didn't think so...

[BDunnell]

All this 'things were different back then' rubbish is precisely that:rubbish! In the 70's people hated the blatant commercialism of F1 and harked back to the 'gentlemanly' days of the 50's, as we now view the 70's! Jack Brabham, amongst others, was well known for corner-cutting in order to drag dirt onto the track and flick stones up at the oncoming driver's faces, so anyone who is going to argue that Schumacher or Senna are not the greatest on ground of being 'unsporting' is being narrow-minded.

This is true, and you could add Farina to that selection, of course. Again, though, arguing whether individual incidents are 'better' or 'worse' than one another is fairly pointless, because it is impossible to come to a hard and fast conclusion.



But to say he is less talented than Senna due to only driving 'safe' 'easy' cars is rubbish too. He drove a 1983 Turbo Ferrari at Imola 4 years ago and said he would not have liked to race it, but you can be damn sure he would have done had he been racing at that time! As already said, he beat Senna on many occasions in a sequential stick-shift, non-traction controlled, Ford HB-V8 powered open-sided cockpit Benetton in 1992...not bad for his first full season..

The guy still races karts for fun; how technologically advanced is that!?

And yet he still beat every single driver who drove in F1 for five years running! Seriously, that's something. Add that to his previous titles in '94 and '95 (where, really, he made F1 look far too easy and far too much fun!)

As mentioned before, statistics are not enough to judge who is the best, however they do provide (in this case) an interesting backup and a good hint towards how good a driver was, that's for sure!

As I have said before, I think Michael's sheer relentless race paces lap after lap, added to the fact that he was also, realistically, a damn good qualifier too and that he maintained this level for years and years (never had an off-season, even in 2005 he pulled races and performances out of the bag you would not expect from any other driver, even on their best days!) So to maintain that level for 8 years in terms of challenging for titles is pretty exceptional. Also Michael won races in 15 consecutive seasons! (Another record) and I honestly don't think we will ever see another driver pull off that feat..

But it was the fact he was always a threat, every race, every season from 1993 to 2006, and that's pretty damn amazing. To say this is all down to Ferrari is just wrong.. I know of no other driver who would regularly stay at the track on a race weekend until late at night, and the sheer drive and determination, added to the obviously huge driving talent makes Schumacher better than Senna, and better than any other F1 driver in my opinion.

Would you ever have seen Michael holding a team to ransom and then mess them about until 4 hours before qualifying as to whether he was going to drive for them that weekend!?! (Imola, 1993).. No, I didn't think so...

I agree with all of that.

However, none of it tells me that Schumacher is a better driver than Senna or anyone else, just as a similar list of facts about Fangio, Clark, Senna or whoever — and one could come up with a similarly impressive selection in each case — would be unable to convince me as to their superiority over Schumacher. I have my own view on the matter, but it's just that — an opinion.

This is not to say that it's not an interesting discussion, though!

[markabilly]

The best thing about looking backwards and saying who is better or worse than Senna, if MS had driven in the same team, back then, if Clark had raced Senna, or who is the best, or should the drivers have kept their points for 2007, is that you can ARGUE ALL YOU WANT, AND THERE IS NO WAY FOR ANYONE TO OBJECTIVELY PROVE YOU ARE WRONG!!!

OTOH, predicting that Mac will lose, Kimi will be WDC, or even who wins the next race....you can still argue about what should happen until it does, and then it is yes or opps

[Osella]

...the sheer drive and determination, added to the obviously huge driving talent makes Schumacher better than Senna, and better than any other F1 driver in my opinion.
;)
And I have always thought that, right back to 1991, so I'm not going to change my mind now, it's just that there's a hell of a lot of supporting evidence and facts to help back me up nowadays! :laugh:

[GingerLynn]

the sheer drive and determination, added to the obviously huge driving talent makes Schumacher better than Senna, and better than any other F1 driver in my opinion.


Positively no teammate was going to ever challenge MS. However I would have loved too see him up against Prost in a McLaren vs. Ferrari 1990 show down!

[ShiftingGears]

Well, isn't that a similar (in some ways) situation as in '94, whereby logic has it that had he not died, Ayrton would have taken the title....

Bingo. :up:

[ArrowsFA1]

An interesting piece in Motor Sport (http://www.motorsportmagazine.co.uk/) this month where Alain Prost talks about having Senna as a team-mate. He suggests that one of Senna's motivations was to match and beat him, and that something significant changed in Senna when Prost retired. He no longer had that "target" to aim for. There's little doubt that when Senna came into F1 Prost was the man to beat, just as when Schumacher made his debut Senna was the man to beat.

[RedBaron]

Hakkinen and Hill were no slouches though, as shown by their eventual titles.
I'd say Berger is around par with Irvine and Barrichello.

Hill I do not agree. He was fired by his team after winning the world title in a far superior machinery and the only guy having the machinery to compete against him was Villeneuve ( a rookie in his first year in formula 1) and you all know how Villeneuve turned out

[DezinerPaul]

To compare Michael and Senna is just pure ignorance to the facts. There is not one area of F1 where Senna is in the top three of the modern era!

[jens]

To compare Michael and Senna is just pure ignorance to the facts. There is not one area of F1 where Senna is in the top three of the modern era!

You're talking about facts? Not one area? Well, what about qualifying facts - he's easily in Top3. And that is at least one area! :D

[DezinerPaul]

You're talking about facts? Not one area? Well, what about qualifying facts - he's easily in Top3. And that is at least one area! :D

Not so, even in getting pole, he is not in the top three, that honor goes to Ascari, Fangio and Clark (not in order). So, here we are the myth grows, tell me one area, where he is in the top three. Tell me one real reason why he should be even considered in the same breath as Michael Schumacher.

[Tallgeese]

Schumacher is compared to Senna most simply because they were the last two greatest champions of the modern era. One could argue that Hill, Villeneuve or Häkkinen were great racers, but not legends in the mould of Schumacher or Senna.

To put it simply, Senna fought giants & was the first among equals, Schumacher had no equals & realistically his rivals came & went. No body (or group of people) put up a sustained challenge to Schumacher. Had Prost or Mansel or Piquet not existed, Senna would have probably won 3-5 more world championships.

Whatever way you look at it if the greatest was measured by statistics, Schumacher is by far the greatest of all time. If the greatest is measured by persona or charisma, I think everybody will have their own opinion on the matter & that's really a 'favourite' choice.

[speeddurango]

Schumacher has a more caluculated driving style while Senna extracted all his talents while he's driving, that's all I can say.

[THE_LIBERATOR]

Not so, even in getting pole, he is not in the top three, that honor goes to Ascari, Fangio and Clark (not in order). So, here we are the myth grows, tell me one area, where he is in the top three. Tell me one real reason why he should be even considered in the same breath as Michael Schumacher.6 Monaco victories, Donington 1993, 65 pole positions in 9 years, including the 3 at the start of 1994 which given advantages of the opposition are enough. Finishing ahead of a Bennetton with a superior engine in 1993....& on & on

There are simply too many question marks over Schumachers results, large question marks.

[ioan]

including the 3 at the start of 1994 which given advantages of the opposition are enough.

What advantage had the opposition over the Williams in 1994? Could you be more explicit?

[THE_LIBERATOR]

What advantage had the opposition over the Williams in 1994? Could you be more explicit?Do I really need to be? I think you know very well, or you may be in denial.

[ioan]

Do I really need to be? I think you know very well, or you may be in denial.

So, you got nothing to prove your previous allegations. Thought so! :rolleyes:

[Rollo]

You could post votes in this thread.

http://www.motorsportforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=128684

That will show the general concensus of the forum on this one.

[futuretiger9]

An interesting piece in Motor Sport (http://www.motorsportmagazine.co.uk/) this month where Alain Prost talks about having Senna as a team-mate. He suggests that one of Senna's motivations was to match and beat him, and that something significant changed in Senna when Prost retired. He no longer had that "target" to aim for. There's little doubt that when Senna came into F1 Prost was the man to beat, just as when Schumacher made his debut Senna was the man to beat.

I also thought that when he felt that he had finally established total supremacy over Prost (1990/1991), Senna's public persona mellowed somewhat, and he became more of an "elder statesman" figure in F1. This was all a consequence of Ayrton entering Grand Prix racing at a time when Prost was considered the man to beat. As you have said, Senna experienced the flip-side of this when Schumacher arrived on the scene.