Drivers in the Senna era vs. Schumacher era

Dont have to know any of Alonsholes mechanics to know he is an idiot. They said it to the reporters earlier in the season.
You obviously forgot all about the beginning of the season.

 

Thanks Tony..Your the best baby.

 

Please refresh yourself with the thread title and you will see that the word "if" is very applicable when making comparisons. I have no problem letting go...what I have a problem with is people like you who contstantly have to slam the best driver Ferrari ever had and doing it right here on a Ferrari site. Who really are the trolls anyway?

 

+10000000000000000000000000

 

Very true. Good point.

Um, seeing as how there are only 10 teams...

 

I did a little math. I compared how many different chassis and drivers won during both drivers' eras. Here is what came back from the lab:

Senna, 1984-1994
Avg. # Chassis = 3.5
Avg. # Drivers = 5.2

Schumacher, 1991 - 2005
Avg. # Chassis = 3.2
Avg. # Drivers = 4.9

Not enough difference there to say there were profound differences. However, I believe the sentiment arises from the fact that, during Michael's 15 seasons there were 10 with only 3 teams reaching victory--and usually only 1 or 2 races--and in 2000 only two teams won. So for most of his career, it seemed as if only his and one other team were doing all the winning (Benetton vs Williams and Ferrari vs McLaren). On top of that, Michael never had a teammate who could unseat him, and as a result was always the "preferred victor" for Ferrari. During Senna's 11 seasons, there five seasons where 4 teams won, and in '85 there were 8 drivers from 5 different teams to take victory. There were two seasons that kind of cancel out--1988 for Senna, when McLaren fell one race short of running the table, and 2000 when Ferrari and McLaren won all the races.

No analsysis would be complete without discussing teammates. Overall, I would say Senna had stronger teammates, mainly due to the way Schumacher crafted his arrangement with Ferrari. In '85 Senna paired with Elio de Angelis who tragically didn't get to show the world his full ability. '86 & '87, not so much with Dumfries and Najajima. '88 and '89 he raced along side Prost, and after Michael Andretti got the boot in early '93, Mika came on board. From '90-'92 his teammate was Gerhard Berger, one of my favorites. Overall, I would classify Berger as equal or better to anyone who partnered Michael at Benetton and Ferrari. But for the sake of argument, we'll call it a wash.

So, in a nutshell, I'd have to say Michael Schumacher and Ayrton Senna were both really good.

 

Excellent Anaylsis Jack, as usual. I don't know why these threads always have to turn into a pissing match, as both were great drivers of their respective ERAs. In addition, we should be happy to have witnessed two of the greatest F1 Drivers in history.

The sadness that comes to mind for me was Gilles Villenueve who I believe was the fastest driver in any car and only had one season (1979) when he had a car that was one of the best. At the time the FW07 Williams chassis was coming up and was the dominant car, yet you never here of Alan Jones being compared to a Gilles Villeneuve. IMHO if Gilles had not been killed in 82 what he would have done with the 82 and 83 Ferrari would have been incredible. At the time McLaren was beginning on an upswing and in Gilles biography, Ron Dennis wanted him very badly and almost got him for the 1982 Season. Therefore, how many Championships would he have won? We will never know.

 

Isn't it amazing how many great ones departed early, leaving us wanting more?

Clark, Villeneuve, Senna, de Angelis, Bellof, Hendrix, SRV, Morrison...and on and on...

 

Yup, Bellof is another example and watching him at the 84 Monaco when he was catching Senna and Prost in the Tyrrll was amazing.

 

Actually at the beginning of the season there were 11...

 

Lennon.

 

+1

Everyone remembers Senna reeling Prost in but most people forget that Bellof was reeling them both in. What would have happened had that race not been called?

We lost Senna at the height of his greatness but we will never know how great Bellof would have become.

 

I knew someone would catch that

...and I knew I would leave out some important ones. That's almost worthy of its own thread over in OT.

 

True, but at the same time attrition affects the lesser teams more than the top end. If I had the time, I would love to look at all those types of numbers season to season and micro-analyze the stats, just for kicks.

 

Absolutely. Look at how well he drove the year before in that piece of crap McLaren. 5 wins, including perhaps the greatest drive in F1 history, Donington. He was on pole for every race in 1994 before his accident. This was not a driver on the decline.

I have no doubt that he had several more WDCs in his future had he not died at Imola.

 

Yes I have to agree, the car had issues not Senna.

I will add though that the pressure due to MS and lack of results thus far was visibly mounting ... shades of Alonso there. One would have thought that Senna would have had self belief than that. I guess because Prost had walked the WDC in the Williams there was massive expectations and the season was just not happening for Senna.
Pete

 

Senna died just turning 34, Villenueve was 32 and Clark 33 or 34 I believe. He was at his peak as the great F1 Journalist Denis Jenkinson and Nigel Robebuck have said, considering he put that ill handling FW14 on the pole 3 times in 3 races before he died.

 

+1 In the book on Williams, from Tragedy to Triumph there is a good section about the 94 Season with Patrick Head and Frank Williams, explaining the early problems with that Chassis as Williams was one of the first teams with active suspension and it took them a while to adjust to the 94 Rules of a passive Chassis than other teams. In addition, the lack of other controls with that car and the adjustment from Imola on made the car much better, unfortunately Senna did not live to see that. There are no comparisons to Alonso as Senna never publicly complained about the issues with the car, but told the team what needed to be done. If anything, Alonso's personality is much more like Prosts.

By the way Anthony C, I very much respect your opinions and knowledge about F1, Pete (PSK) as well. I am glad that this thread is so constructive and not too much Trolling going on except for the one Individual that I will not mention. Fortunately, the Ignore Function has helped a great deal, until someone responds and that Individuals stupid comments show up.


Best,

Tony

 

Of course I disagree.

I said 'win', not 'win championships', and I also said 'not be a total shock if XYZ won', I didn't say 'win on a regular basis', but THANKS for twisting most of what I said...

Back then, it simply would not have been a total shock to see Laffitte win in a Ligier, or Berger or Surer in an Arrows-BMW, or Cheever in a Renault, the top-12-14 cars were CAPABLE of winning - some obviously more than others, but today, we have the top-4 or 6 cars, and a HUGE HUGE gap back to the rest of the field - a gap that wasn't so big back then. Heck - on the short courses folks would put money on the Tyrrell-Cosworth - the ONLY non-turbo car out there, and it did well in Monaco and Detroit.

Yes, we did have a bunch of PAY-AS-YOU-GO drivers, such as whoever brought money to be the #2 driver for Lotus (Dumfries, and the Japanese guy - Nakajima ?) and Ligier-Renault's #2, Francois Hesnault, but the cars were more competitive overall than they are today. Today it's so bad we have this silly three-tiered qualifying round just to keep the slow folk away from the fast folk.