Drivers in the Senna era vs. Schumacher era

Thank you but I will be the first to say that I do not deserve such praises. I am just a long time Ferrari and F1 fan and I will never consider myself to be an expert when it comes to F1. But I too am extremly glad that all of us has been able to stay on track with this thread. However, with all due respect, I disagree with the assessment on Franco/355. IMO, he is a devoted Schumacher fan and his posts are not any worse than what some of the devote Senna fans would post. I erally think that some members here are simply too harsh on Franco/355 from time to time.

Regards,
Anthony

 

Must not be fluent in english...

I said, 'not be a total shock if they won'.

Today, it WOULD be a total shock if anything outside of the top-6 won.
BUT now that I think about it, I have to revise it to the top-6 PLUS Alonso.

But by the same token, I am losing all faith in Heidfeld, so maybe it is just 6 drivers.

 

And I think it's still on YouTube. If not, I have it.

What's really neat is less than a month later *I* am sitting on the pit wall in Detroit, trying to have a (broken) conversation with Senna. It was awesome because the american 'regular' press had NO CLUE who he was, he was largely ignored in Detroit that year because (also) nobody ever heard of a Toleman. He was not in a Ferrari, Brabham or McLaren so he must not be very good (sic). Just me, a friend, and Senna. My friend had NO idea who he was aside from a guy that tore a corner off two chassis going thru the kink at the beginning of the front straight... I remember this like it was yesterday.

 

Yes according to Rubens, who with all due respect, looks and remembers Senna with more rose tinted glasses than just about any other person.

I remember Senna spinning out of the Brazilian GP, and other DNF's that year ... but the spin was out of character. I remember how twitchy the Williams was at Imola and Senna continuing to bang out amazingly fast race laps, with sparks flying from the undercarriage ... and in behind him was MS in his Beneton. Nobody can tell me Senna was not feeling the pressure of the new boy on the block leading HIS WDC, and also him the magnificient Senna in the dominant Williams (until this season ofcourse). Senna also had not won a WDC for a few years and his arch rival Prost had just bagged yet another one!

I also remember reading about Senna's first drive against his F1 rivals which was not in a F1 car but in a Mercedes saloon car. Some sort of celebrity race. According to the book I read everybody took it more like a bit of a laugh, but ofcourse with a little bit of pride ... but Senna was unbelievably serious, and used this as a away to prove to himself that he had their measure.

This to me smacks of a guy just as insecure as any other very self confident F1 driver.
Pete

 

Let's try this again, it may not have been a shock to you, but it sure was to me. You are right about my english tho, because unlike you, I am only fluent in English and not english.

 

Actually Pete, I agree with you (Please go back to page 2 of this thread) on your assessment of Senna. I think all of them are insecure to an extend, as it is an amazingly effective motivational tool for becoming one of the greatest ever.

 

The McLaren had a customer version of the engine being used by Benneton and was unqestionably down on horsepower compared to the Renault and the factory engine in the Benneton.

Andretti inherited his podiun at Monza but was a more talented driver than his performance would indicate. He had difficulty adjusting to F1 given that practice times were severely restricted and, admittedly, his commitment was suspect. Hakkinan on the other hand was hardly an inferior driver, Schumacher himself said that Hakkinan was his most feared competitor (at least after Senna died).

 

So you think Hakkinan is an equal to Senna and not inferior to Senna ?

 

I don't think anyone is the equal of Senna.

However Hakkinan, while not of the caliber of a Senna, was an outstanding driver and a 2X WDC. You made it sound like he was a backmarker.

 

He also out qualified Senna in his first race. He was so committed for qualifying, the Flying Finn.

 

What's your point? Do you base a driver's entire career achievements, and where he ranks as a driver on his 1st qualifying result?

 

So with this quote by you, the logical conclusion would be 1) The 1993 McLaren-Ford was not really a piece of "crap" as you had stated earlier or 2) Unlike what you said earlier, Schumacher did indeed have high quality competition during his active years to validate his 7 WC titles.

 

1) No, the McLaren was clearly not as competitive a car as where the Williams or the Benetton. I stand by my previous statement, the car was absolutely down on horsepower to both of those teams and wasn't capable of anything other than an occasional point here and there, unless in the hands of Senna. They ran a customer engine, a generation behind Benetton's powerplant, in a chassis developed without Adrian Newey, this was not a winning combination in the early 1990s.

So far all you have pointed out was that Andretti had a podium finish (inherited, I might add) and that Hakkinan had a couple of 3rd place finishes. So what? Senna won 5 races with that same car. I hardly consider Andretti or Hakkinan's achievements that year to be indicative that the car was anywhere near as competitive as Senna made it. After all Glock has a couple of very good finishes this year, do you think Lewis wants to trade his McLaren for the Toyota?

2) Where did I say that Schumacher didn't have competition to validate his 7 WDCs? You might be confusing me with someone else, perhaps? What I said was that Schumacher would not have won as many WDCs as he did had Senna not died.

 

Ted,

1) The McLaren Ford (Customer Engine) was done about 60BHP per Ford at the time, however, it had one thing going for it which was the TAG-Electronics.

2) I agree on your assessment on Schumacher, I think he would have won a lot of championships, but IMHO I think the Mid 90's would have been a great duel between Senna and Schumacher in the Williams and Benetton. As Jean Todt and Luca said they were trying to give Senna the same contract as Schumacher got in 1996.

 

My point is he was no slouch. He was quick and he may have given Senna some trouble later on, maybe not. He had some alright achievements in his driving career.

 

1) My point is, judging from what Hakkinen was able to do with only 3 races and what Andretti was able to do even with his lack of testing and committment, the McLaren-Ford can not be as bad as you painted out to be. While there is little doubt that Senna was the key to winning those 5 races, the McLaren-Ford package still has to be good enough to allow him to win them. You made it sound as if Senna would still have won had he been driving Tyrrell-Yamaha. Senna was amazing but even he can not walk on water.

2) My mistake then. Please allow me to go on record and clear up my misundertanding by saying that YOU, Ted/Senna3xWC, does think Michael Schumacher's 7 WC titles are well deserved and that the drivers he competed against are indeed worthy adversaries in this reality that we all live in.

 

I think are getting away from my original point. Senna won 5 races in a car that was down significantly on horsepower to his rivals. The whole discussion originated on my contention that Senna was in his prime when he died. Given that we know the McLaren was an inferior car to the competition, a driver finding a way to win 5 GPs must surely be driving extremely well, no? He also put the ill-handling Williams on pole for the first 3 races of the 1994 season.

At the time of his death, Senna was driving as well as he had in his entire career. He was not slowing down by any measure and therefore was driving at the top of his game. He was not a driver in decline.

We can debate the relative merits of the 1993 McLaren endlessly, it appears, but that is not really the discussion at hand.

 

MS vs AS - While I am unsure about comparing Herr Schumacher to Master Senna, with the benefit of hindsight, how can anyone know, and where is my christal ball et al, firstly looking at the beginning of '94 Ayrton didnt seem to be his usual self, whether it be that he had truly gotten sick of racing or made peace with the world and lost his edge or any of the other posibilities, he wasnt that good, I remember watching a couple of those early season races and either his Williams was **** or he was ****, but either way it just wasnt going well. Having said that he WOULD have kept Herr MS honest and I believe would have kept Michael from winning as many races, but surely by the mid or at worst late 90's Ayrton would have retired. He started F1 in 1983/84 and looking at most top line drivers 10 - 15 years seems to be absolute max.
So 1996 if Ayrton was still at Williams, he would have done the business surely. BUT do you think if Ayrton was still at Williams AND competitive, MS would have left Benetton and gone to Ferrari ??, surely he would have thought twice, and that goes to show the pointless discussion of what ifs ?.
As for relative competitors, the cars were very very different in the 1980's, everyone talks about the difference in technologies but what about the difference in $$$$$$. The budgets for McLaren in 1984 when they one their first WDC with TAG - Porsche would just about cover Scuderia Toro - Rosso's drivers salaries today ??. I mean Lotus's budget in the Senna era was miniscule compared to todays budget, the staff would have been approx. 100 as opposed to todays 800 -1200 so it was extremely amateur in comparison.
However the number of competitors was I think the same, Ayrton had Prost, Piquet and then at the end MS to deal with and if he had the same machinery would have beaten mansell, berger, rosberg, et al. Herr MS had Senna, Mike and Alonso to deal with and again could have and did dominate the others.
What puts me more into Herr MS's corner is that he did two things better than other WDC's b4 or since is two points
1 - he didnt chop and change teams, he had 4 years at Benetton and then 10 years at Ferrari (he could easily have gone to Williams after Benetton, and could have left Ferrari and gone anywhere he wanted etc. vs Ayrton with Toleman, Lotus, McLaren, Williams and the possible overtures from Ferrari at the end.)
2 - Herr MS's noticeable tactical abilities, cos. for all of the Brazilian's fiery temperament he could never truly concentrate resources and emeotion into winning every race or at least finishing as highly as possible, whereas Herr MS could ensure all of the resources over the years were concentrated on just that.

So IMHO for all of my love of the exciting Brazilian, I have to give the crown to Herr Michael Schumacher.
Postscript: it would have been interesting to have seen MS vs LH I think lewis could be the next big thing, "Could BE" but he will have to mature a lot, when you look at the first couple of years of Ayrton and also Michael there were the usual growing pains and then they became the greats they were (and Ralf was ****)

 

I agree that there is zero doubt when it comes to Senna's talent but I am not too sure if he wasn't feeling the pressure from Schumacher in 1994. Anyway, do you happen to remember how he DNF'ed in the first two races in 1994 ?

 

Anthony, he led from Pole in Brazil, MS had a faster pit stop and was leading, Senna started reeling him in from a 9 second gap to a 5 second gap and he spun out. At Aida in Japan he started from Pole and got nailed from behind by Mika in the McLaren causing the Replacement for Alesi (Larini) to nail his Williams. He never got passed on the track during the first 3 races that he held pole. In the first race he spun out and blamed himself, the second race he got taken out, and the third race he died while in the lead.

 

Yes, he spun in the first race (the Williams was known to have twitchy handling) in an uncharacteristic error that I believe was forced by trying to keep up with Schumacher's pace (and the Benetton's illegal traction control ).

The second race he got into an accident in the first corner and was later knocked out of the race in a second accident. That race I don't believe was his fault.

I don't disagree that he was feeling the pressure from Schumacher. Schumacher's pace was pretty well established well before the start of the season and Senna unqustionably knew he was going to have his handful with him. That, however, is not the same thing as feeling he was going to be outpaced by Schumacher, just that he would have to be sharp.

 

Here is how I viewed the two of them:

Senna: Very quick. Impulsive and would make emotional decisions on the track. Some with success (The Prost incident) and some not so successful. Would be more incline to retaliate without thought. Probably the best at dragging a subpar car to the front.

Schumacher: Very quick. Cold and calculating. He could make the on track strategic decisions instantly without prejudice, successfully commanding the desired result. Win at all cost strategy.

 

*L* You Senna fans are amazing, you wouldn't happen to know what he had for dinner the night before or the color of his underwear that day, or do you ? Safe to assume that both of you have the Senna collection on tape or on DVD ? Anyway, thanks for the reminder, I honestly do not remember any details of those two first races in 1994. I think the race at Imola blocked out everything for me.....

 

Senna's biggest weakness is his want to win all sessions. He should never have moved to Williams, was never happy there. I pretty sure I have read somewhere that he used to ring Ron Dennis all the time, or somebody AND was talking about retiring, or atleast was somewhat confused, lacking direction.

Not 100% true. MS had a huge weakness in his early years, he simply killed the car (or tyres) by racing the whole race. He wasted so many championships in the late 90's by this, especially at his favourite circuit: Spa. He simply could not just win at Spa, wanted to lap the entire field many times.

Even in the 2000's (cannot remember the exact year) I remember a race at Spa where before everybody was talking up Rubens and how he was pushing MS that year ... we went to Spa and MS completely fncken walked all over Rubens ... and even the very last lap just punished him and put him completely back in his place. It was great to watch, but flipping stupid ... as after the 2nd lap he could have just cruised home to an easy win.

He also made poor decisions under pressure, and thus if you and your car were good enough to push MS, he was fallable ... problem was after Senna, and Mika (on a good day) not many people could, especially once Ferrari worked out how to make a winner. I believe Alonso (on his day) is mentally stronger than MS ... but Alonso seems to have lost his composure somewhat recently.

Where MS was very good, is in doing what he was told ... on clear laps. He also like Senna intimidated others on the track so that passing was easier ... not as well, but you could see the driver in front thinking '**** it's MS!!'.
Pete

 

Hey you think that is bad, I married a Brasilian, regarding the underwear I would not know that. LOL