modern Senna

I love how you insinuate that the B194 was some great handling car. That was an immensely twitchy and difficult car to handle. Williams won the WCC in 1994 and why don't you check out how Schumacher's teammate did? MS was on another level. See this is your problem, like most Senna fans, you can't handle that Senna was simply being beaten by MS so you have to make every excuse in the book for Senna. You see it when they argue about Prost. When Senna lost, it's because Prost had the FIA on his side, or had a better car, or blah blah blah.

It's laughable to suggest that the Benetton was better than the Williams. BOTH cars were difficult to drive and one was absolutely not head and shoulders above the other at the start. As the season went on, the Williams was clearly better.

As for the spin, how can you blame Williams for that? TC had been banned and all teams were having trouble adjusting. Senna, being a triple WDC, should have known better. Unfortunately he was frustrated at being beaten and lost it. 100% his fault.

Are you kidding? My remarks are rooted in reality, where Schumacher DID win these championships when the FIA stacked everything against him in 1994 and dominated in 1995. You erroneously claimed that Hill "bungled" the 1995 as if he had a prayer? He was comprehensively destroyed by MS. Statements like that make you impossible to take seriously.

Evidence for my prediction of Schumacher being able to beat Senna in 1994 and 1995? Gee, let's look at actual history. Schumacher had already beaten Senna in 1992 in an inferior car, he won the 1994 title (and was destroying Senna in the points prior to Ayrton's death) despite the FIA doing everything it could to hand it to Hill/Williams, and he anihilated the competition in 1995 with 9 race wins. MS was only getting better and Senna, had he lived, was only getting older and based on his own admissions he was questioning his desire to remain in the sport. Senna couldn't stand it when people were better than him or beat him and it was very, very clear that he was rattled by Schumacher in 1994.

What do you have to support your theory that Senna would have come back and won in 1994 and then in 1995, 1996, and 1997? That you think Senna was better because he beat Schumacher at Donington '93?

I mean really now...

 

I don't blame Williams, and I'd challenge you to quote where I did. What I said was that the Williams was a difficult car at the start of 94 and that it was developed and improved through the year by Head and Newey.

Since YOU brought up TC, we might as well track back to that - sure, the Benetton was better than the Williams in 94, especially at the beginning of the year, because they had an illegal traction control system fitted and operational on the car, and were almost certainly using it. Again, the paragons of virtue Walkinshaw and Briatore were running the team...

What reality? Senna did not compete against Schumacher for the whole 94 and 95 seasons - your opinions on the possible results if Senna had competed are not based on reality either. You've also gone back to paranoid FIA conspiracy theories, when in fact Walkinshaw and Briatore were both proven cheats and had no problems at all cheating to win. Missing fuel filters, illegal traction control, crash for safety cars, many of their transgressions spanning decades are well known now. It's also known that Schumacher considered leaving the team after 94 because he wasn't comfortable with their cheating approach. If the FIA went after Benetton, it was justified. Many would say the FIA let them off lightly - Benetton's transgressions in 94, including the presence of the banned TC, were far greater than McLaren's in 07, yet the punishments were not remotely similar, so I'd definitely disagree that the FIA had it in for Schumacher just because, because, well,...

Finally, since you want to turn the discussion to insults to me, and have said you can't take me seriously, I'm done with this conversation.

 

Okay:

The Benetton was no better than the Williams and the whole TC fiasco came from Senna's bitterness at being beaten. I'm sure he didn't think it was possible some young German could beat the great Ayrton Senna. That must have been hard for him to handle.

The difference is, Schumacher DID win both those titles in reality. Your opinion is rooted in 100% speculation.

Your opinion: Senna would have won the 1994, 1995, 1996, and 1997 titles.

My opinion: Schumacher would have won the 1994 and 1995 titles. Senna would have won the 1996 and 1997 titles had he kept driving and stayed with Williams (but I think he would have retired before that).

Now let's look at the facts:

-Schumacher had beaten Senna before while driving inferior machinery (1992)
-Schumacher was destroying Senna in the 1994 standings, and amassed a huge lead
-Schumacher continued to win races in 1994 and was very consistent the whole year, Senna was erratic in the races before his death
-Senna was beginning to question staying in F1 in 1994
-Schumacher only got better in 1995 and won 9 races - many still consider this to be his finest season
-Senna would have only gotten older and less sharp
-Schumacher was entering the prime of his career

Now, considering the facts, which scenario do you think is more plausible - mine or yours?

Brilliant!

Oh?

You said my opinion was ridiculous, I said I couldn't take you seriously. Interesting that you now act all pious.

 

Many of the current drivers (including Michael Schumacher himself) rank Senna as the best, good enough for me. I am also a huge Michael fan as well, I just think Senna, Clark and Fangio were better.

 

The debate between the Schumi and Senna fanbases will go on for ages. Obviously MS is modest enough to not say himself. My whole point is, it's crazy (when looking at the facts) to assuredly say Senna would have won the 1994-1997 titles in a row had he lived.

 

Alright, I'll try again.

Yes, I have consistently said that the FW16 was a troubled car at the beginning of 1994, and that Senna was overdriving it. You somehow translated that to me saying "Williams made Senna spin". I think my explanation was clear and consistent, and doesn't lead to or support the conclusion you came to.

The TC fiasco didn't come from Senna's bitterness - when Senna suggested that the Benetton was running illegal traction control based on his watching the car out on track, I would tend to give a fair bit of credibility to his opinion based not on bitterness, but his 10 years in F1 including TC and non-TC years. That's experience, not bitterness.

When the FIA discovered at the end of the season that the Benetton ECU included the banned TC software, and that the TC could be activated via menu commands that had been deliberated hidden on the laptop control software and via specific paddle/button combinations on the steering wheel, it wasn't Senna's bitterness 7 months after his death, it was FIA forensic analysis that discovered the Benetton cheating. Unlike in 2007 with McLaren, the FIA gave Benetton the legal benefit of the doubt and didn't penalize or ban them from the 94 season because they couldn't legally prove the available TC system had been used. There is little doubt anywhere in the paddock, however, that Benetton was using the TC system as Senna had alleged. Again, Walkinshaw and Briatore were certainly not unfamiliar with cheating to gain an advantage, and that's proven.

Sorry, I wasn't clear - when I wrote "so I'd definitely disagree that the FIA had it in for Schumacher just because, because, well,...", I was trying to make fun of your FIA witchhunt allegations for no reason other than your supposition that they wanted to keep the WDC race from being a blowout. My opinion, stated clearly, is that the FIA wouldn't have cared whether the WDC race was a blowout based on their not caring in the two seasons immediately preceding, and that the FIA had plenty of actual reasons for punishing Benetton because Benetton was deliberately violating rules and regulations - like the hacked fuel filter rigs, like ordering Schumacher to ignore black flags, like making blatantly ridiculous claims to justify excessive plank wear, and so on.

Not pious. When you said "pompous", I said "how about we leave words like that out", and you continued in the same vein anyway. I'm happy to discuss this with you, but not if you feel the need to throw out slights and insults.

 

Doesnt anyone remember what MS said in the post race interview after he won the '94 WDC?? I cant youtube it right now, but I'm pretty sure it was something along the lines of "If Senna was here, this title would have been for him"..or something like that.

 

Simply false. You said the fault was with Williams in the first few races, not Senna. I simply said Senna cracked under pressure and lost control in Brazil (throwing away a big chunk of points) while trying to chase down MS. How is that the fault of Williams? That their car was hard to drive? Sorry, but it's still De la Rosa's fault if he spins, even driving a HRT.

Nice to see you admit that it was Senna's mistake, finally. So no, all the problems in the first few races weren't those of Williams, a big one was due to Senna and Senna only.

Senna was a class A whiner and felt entitled to everything. (The 1990 Japanese Grand Prix starting spot saga before wrecking Prost is a perfect example of this). He was bothered that Schumacher was smoking him and I'm sure it was frustrating to pork your own race in front of your home fans while making a futile attempt to chase down the "young gun."

Why was he the only one to complain about this TC? Can you answer me that? Lots of cars raced Schumacher, yet only Senna complained. Williams themselves didn't even protest at the time.

Like I said before, 1994 was a unique situation due to Ayrton's death. Regardless of a conspiracy or not, the penalty imposed on Schumacher was absurdly harsh. That's a given. So this statement...

...was ill-advised because even despite the grandest of setbacks at the hands of the FIA, MS persevered because he was that much better. You tried to insinuate that Hill was a genuine challenge for MS on track and tried to do it again with your statement about Hill "bungling" the 1995 title. Both were/are comically off-the-mark. MS proved that by anhilating Hill in 1995 when he was actually allowed to start every race.

Dude, you lobbed the first grenade saying that my opinion was ridiculous way before I said anything about being pompous so let's leave the high horse in the corral. Thanks.

Go back and read my first post on this page and then yours. I never insulted you in mine, all I said was that you were speculating, which was true. Then read yours. See who was inflammatory...

 

Statements like that are nice feel-good moments for everyone. If you really think MS thought that I have a bridge to sell you.

 

I'll try to find the clip on youtube, but i seem to remember it from when speed replayed the '94 F1 races on "decade'

 

Well, that was a waste of time.

Definitely done this time.

 

Would be interesting to see. I'm not doubting at all that he did say it (makes for a nice moment after a turbulent year), but I AM doubting that he actually believed it. Racing drivers, particularly at this level, would never believe something like that.

The '94 season was crazy!

 

Could have seen this coming from a mile away. The GordonC M.O.:

Enter thread, make inflammatory response. Become indignant when other poster sends one back his way. Make contradictory/uneducated statements. Lose argument. Try to use being dignified as an exit strategy to save face when he sure as hell didn't use it as an entry strategy!


Hilarious.

 

But you could far easier argue they are not. Back in the day when the guy in front could move as much as he liked, Senna had no problem overtaking. Gap - mine. Alonso by comparison is so poor at overtaking, and has the audacity to shake his fist like it's his given right..

 

MS was a legend in his own time, no doubt. But Ayrton was another level of intensity.

 

No, just that you have revealed yourself to be nothing more than a common internet troll, getting your kicks from baiting people. You're just a jackass, and I got suckered into thinking you might want an intelligent discussion. You fooled me. Good for you.

 

I want in on this wager. Checo is going to be licking Jenny's behind.

 

Back again already?

Come on Gordo, calling me names after such a holier-than-thou attitude a mere few posts ago? Even for someone that drops as many contradictory statements as you do that's a little much!

I'd love for you to explain how I'm "trolling." Good luck.

 

Watch the 2012 Valencia GP for one example of why that statement is wrong.

 

Or the pass of both McLarens at the same time at Abu Dhabi or this:
http://youtu.be/fXl-Bkzndc8

[Edit]: I meant to say India not Abu Dhabi

 

+1000

 

-1000 . He had a better start than the other two, got hooked up before they did. That's not really the same thing. You know that.

Take away DRS and KERS and we'd most likely be back to a procession.