There is no point in having a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent. Your comments speak for themselves.
I won't comment on the emotional statements, but this one is IMHO a poor argument: Just look at the drivers in the 94 cars: They basically sat outside. The new rules that were created because of Senna's AND RATZENBERGER'S death (and the almost fatal Wendlinger accident in the next race at Monaco) gave the drivers the long needed side protection and in a sense started a revolution in design: Mc Laren was the first to figure out that you don't need to build a huge side wall (as Ferrari unfortunately did in one of their ugliest race cars ever), but lower the pilot by moving him into a more horizontal position. That's not hindering development, that is spurring it! I would actually argue, that even today's cars are not safe enough and more needs to be done. We didn't have fatalities not just because of the strong tubs, but also because of sheer dumb luck. And especially MS fans should think about that (he lost his life almost on three occasions in the last few years).
I don't suppose there's a shot in he!! Blockbuster has it. I'll check this evening. Thanks for the heads-up. Dane
Favorite Drivers Gilles-1979 French Grand Prix and 81 Spain say it all. He willed that pig of a car to that victory in Spain. Also like Lauda and MS. Would have loved to have seen Jim Clark and Jackie Stewart in their prime but I was too young; a friend of my father saw the gruesome death of Cevert at the Glen that led to Jackie's retirement. He was a huge Stewart fan. Least Favorite: That is easy. Pironi. As for my 2 cents on Senna, he was one driver I lost respect for after the Japan 1990 incident with Prost. He was terrified of Prost. Witness Brazil 1990. However he was a great qualifier and rain racer-would have won Monte Carlo 1984 if Ickx (Porsche Factory Racer) didn't stop the race to give it to Porsche powered Prost...
I actually was at that race and got soaked sitting at the swimming pool. I don't think you have to come up with the Porsche connection. Prost is French and Monaco is basically the other French GP. Ickx was giving the folks what they wanted.
I do not know if someone has said this already, but what if Senna were still alive, would he still be so great? I never got a chance to watch F1 when Senna was around, so it unfair for me to give my opinion about who is the best driver. But I spoke to a friend of mine who paints helmets for a living and he had chance to paint Senna's helmet and Schumachers. He also knew Senna pretty well. In his opinion, Schumacher is the best F1 driver. The reason, Senna has always been on the best team from the very start of his career, whereas Micheal had to work on making the team successful. Senna's father had tons of money and always wanted Senna to be on the best teams. Micheal Schumacher had to work very hard and eventually found Willi Weber to help him out.
Hmmmm... well, although your friend might have known Senna he got some info very wrong. First was that he's always been on the best team. That certainly isn't true. See multiple posts above about that subject. Second yes, his father was wealthy. But, he did not endorse or underwrite Ayrton's racing. He did that all on his own! He paid for his Kart racing on his own where as MS's father was flipping the bill for that from the very beginning. MS also had the support of the Mercedes factory once he began racing cars, in Prototypes with Sauber and also in F3! Senna did not have any such heavy lifting on his part. If anything if you look at their careers before F1 Senna was at a disadvantage to MS in regards to helping hands. There was a pipeline for Brazilian drivers during the late 70's and early 80's that had been set up to help drivers advance in Europe. But, don't think that Senna had it easy. He lost a marriage because of his ambition and made his father very unhappy with his choice of career. I'd say stop talking to your friend and pick up on of the many biographies on both drivers. You'll find a lot of good info in them to help make a decision on the subject.
Not to sound like we're ganging up on you but unless your friend's name is Sid Mosca he never painted Senna's helmet. Senna had used only one helmet painter since karting. Apparently he was the one that gave him the design in the first place. And i would say that Toleman wasn't the best team either, neither was lotus. In that regard Schumacher has been on better teams than Senna has. Toleman was not very good at all, and lotus was on it's way down, He didn't get to the best team till 4 years into his career.
Senna > MS! Simple as that. The only reason MS looks better than any other driver is statistically. Statistics do NOT record the quality of your opposition, the quality of your race wins/performances, etc. As I said before we have only seen MS race real opposition in about 3 maybe 4 years of his F1 career, and half those times he cracked under the pressure and lost. Most of his WC wins have been a walk in the park ... the other cars might have well not been on the track at all, such was his car and team advantage. Now the best end up with the best equipment, but we were lucky when Senna and Prost raced ... they both ended up in the same dominant car. If Senna had not had this direct comparison to his ability, and visa versa for Prost then his recognition in history would not be anywhere near as great, but we witnessed 2 of the very, very best in a direct fight! This hardly ever happens in the history of motorsport and IMO puts them above Fangio, Moss and Clark and up with Nuvolari. If you read the history Fangio, etc. all could either take over a team mates car or had other advantages (ie. amature opposition racers, etc.). I guess Laudas efforts are close to as impressive as the Ferrari was not the best car ... or though we will never know for sure I will say that MS would have become an even better driver if Senna had lived ... he would have risen far higher than he is today, and probably beaten Senna. Ofcourse Senna would have been at the end of his career and MS the younger keener man ... In the end MS has profited from a changing of the guard and nobody else really stood up and said: 'I want to be WC' ... Mika had to be pushed and Hill, while mentally very tough, not really good enough behind the wheel ... but managed to finally get there. Pete ps: And yes Senna has become larger than he should be due to his death ... but his on track performances are there for all to read. His weirdness and dangerous driving are been forgotten over time, which clouds the facts and many peoples view of him. I think he was a nutter myself ... but man could be drive.
Good post Pete. But, this brings up the question about Prost. He was pretty brilliant himself! Often he gets put further down on the order because of Senna. Further down than he should be. I don't think there was any other driver who really knew his machinery better than Prost. To a point of deficiency at times though. He could tend to his tires and car during a race and when others were struggling with graining, blisters, failing clutches, he'd be making his move. He could be down in 7th place with 15 laps to go and suddenly with 3 left he'd be in second ready to take the lead. They didn't call him the Professor for nothing. Having him and Senna with two very different driving styles in the same car and NOT sharing any set up information during a race weekend then fight it out was absolutely brilliant. The down side of Prost though was if his car wasn't perfect (for him) he was miserable and often underperformed. I actually started out a Prost supporter and hated Senna. Then around 1989-1990 my view began to change. I just couldn't deny it anymore. Senna won out in my heart regardless of my mind. I think you could have put him out on the grid in a lawn mower and he would have gotten on with the job at hand. If you'd done it to Prost he would have complained. Senna would have put it on pole. Prost is still a very worthy driver and deserves to be on this thread. The two will forever be linked and would be the lesser if they had never raced against each other.
Yup, totally agree Senna21. Prost won championships against Senna and Nigel and almost against Lauda (which also makes Lauda a hero). I consider him as one of the intellectually smartest drivers, probably only a tad behind Lauda, whom they called the computer. Senna was probably more gifted, but also wilder. Whereas Prost disappointed in his deliberate rain retirements. Something neither Senna nor Michael ever did (but Lauda in Fuji, but that's a bit of a different case having just come back from the dead). And you know what they say about the real champions? The best you see in the rain. Senna, Michael and Alesi come to mind. We can endlessly toss this one around and things can be said about worthy WC titles and not, but I think ANY champion who made it more than once probably deserves a seat in the pantheon of the all time greatests. That includes Senna, Prost, Lauda, Michael, Piquet and Mika to name only the more recent ones. A WC title isn't everything, but having won it more than once does tell you something. Ok, now let's hear it from the Moss and Gilles fans.
Senna21, If you look at my earlier post I rated them this way: 1. Prost 2. Senna 3. MS ... 4. Mika I will always rate Prost higher than Senna ... Senna was very fast, but also a nutter and dangerous behind the wheel. Anyway I believe the way to rate any driver is by how many WC's he raced against and beat, thus: Fangio - Ascari, Hawthorn, Moss (nearly a WC). Clark - Stewart, Hill (Graham), Rindt, Surtees. Prost - Raced Lauda, Piquet, Senna, Mansell. Senna - Raced Piquet, Prost, Mansell ... I think Lauda had already retired. MS - Raced agains Senna, Prost in his early days but then against Hill, JV and Mika and now only JV (who is muted in a Sauber). Now I do not know about you guys but I do not rate Hill as a driver, that was all car and mental toughness and JV ... well again car, so only really against Mika who is fast but not anywhere near Prost or Senna level. Thus MS has no worthy, experienced opposition ... hence his recent Ferrari WC's have been a walk in the park as the opposition not only have been racing him, but also themselves in their goal to loose their WC virginity. Pete ps: Note my all time order would be something like this: 1. Nuvolari - bloody fast and a madman, but by skill stayed alive and won in the very dangerous days. 2. Fangio. 3. Clark. 4. Moss. 5. GV. 6. Lauda. 7. Stewart. 8. Prost. 9. Senna. 10. MS. ... n. Mika
This is a good point. Shu never had a Prost so to speak. And when he did have competition he could get very dirty(Villenuve 97 for one) He'd never had to be that strong mentally because he pretty much knew he was the best of his time. Prost was so brilliant that Senna always had a doubt.
All this talk about Michael not having any real competition must be a joke. Michael was able to make it look easy leading from start to finish. Senna or Prost could hardly do that. Senna made Prost look good and vice versa. Michael did not let anybody shine. If Senna had raced Rubens or even Irvine in similar cars I am sure he would have had stiff competition with them too. F1 is a team sport and combined together Ferrari, Rubens and Michael are best F1 team to have ever been created!
I tend to agree: He faced Senna in 94 and battled the ultrafast Hakkinen thereafter. Even Hill was fast, not a great racer, but when in front darn fast. It might not have been as though as the Prost-Senna years where both sat in the same team, but it certainly was no walk in the park. And you really cannot blame the guy for the weaknesses of his competition.
No he can't be blamed for that, but the quality of his competition was different that it was in the Senna Prost days. Hakk was fast but still maturing till 98 or so. Hill was a test driver thrown into a number one driver role. There were 2 3 time world champs and A future in Nigel Mansell who, when in top form could beat anybody. When looked at it that way it's hard to argue otherwise. It's not to say that he had no comp but it was different for the both of them
Let's face it, this discussion is more for fun only We all feel our driver is the best, whoever he may be. Just one more point to think about tho, I do not recall F1 ever having so much rule changes from year to year until recently. There were rule alterations from year to year before, but nothing as dramatic as the recent 5 years or so, such as the qualifying format has changed at least 3 times since MS took his first title. Which is why I keep on saying that you can't compare drivers of different eras. The way I see it, the only fair comparison you can do is to compare drivers that came into F1 within a few years of each other or drivers that happen to peak about the same time with each other. as in Senna vs. Prost vs. Mansell. As for Piquet, wasn't he more on the decline by the time when Senna, Prost and Mansell started to really hit their stride?
Dramatic rule changes are nothing new to Formula 1: Remember the eighties and the FISA/FOCA war about having skirts or not? That whole mess actually created the Concorde agreement, which was intended to stabilize the sport and it did to some degree. So in recent years, yes less changes, but if you look at F1 as a whole, then no. Piquet's star was falling at that time, but he faced though competition in his years leading to his championships: He was battling Jones, Reutemann, Villeneuve, Pironi, Arnoux, Jabouille, Laffite to just name a few.
Like I said, there were no doubt rules changes, but were the changes so dramatic and within such a short time span? Again, my example in the qualifying format, it used to be timed session from both Friday and Saturday qualifying sessions, to Saturday qualifying only, to 12 laps only qualifying, to single lap qualifying to reversed single lap pre-qualifying and then qualifying, then to current format of two qualifying runs over span of two days with accumlated times with the final qualifying right before the race...(Not sure if I got them all, as they keep on changing it). And then you also have differences in the scoring systems, from what I recall, it went from the best of 12 out of 14 races or something like that (When Prost, Senna, Mansell raced) to every single race counted (Prost, Senna, Mansell, Schumacher, Hill, Villeneuve and Hakkinen) to points awarded to top 8 instead of the top 6 with less differentiation between the finishers as it is today. You can't possible be so entranced in your support of your driver of choice to not think all these changes had an impact. Again, the requirements to win a WC in the 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's and the 90's are all very different. Again, you will never be able to determine who is the best of the best, as it is simply not possible. There is something funny about history, as it usually takes some time for greatness to kick in. Who knows what we will be saying about M.Schumacher 10 or 20 years from now, however, no one can ever say that he was not the best driver during his era as his 7 world titles (So far, as I am still hoping for the 05 season....) would and should dictate. The sport of F1 owes him at least that much, not to mention what he had done for the Tifosi all over the world.
Despite my bickering over Schumacher, I'm 100% certain history will look back at him in a very positive way. He has put his mark on the last 10 years like no other driver and on F1's history in general by ranking up seven titles. He will always be mentioned as one of the all time key players, no doubt. I was never a Senna fan, nor am I one today and was cheering every time he got beaten. But would I not think of him today as one of the greatest drivers ever? And that has nothing to do with his death. It is just, that while we live the season, we have our favourites and focus on those and beat up on others. But once the season is over and time passes we get a clearer picture. So regardless of what I ever thought of Senna or Schumacher, they have/will go down into the F1 history books as true greats.
Piquet was in decline when he joined Lotus and Senna got to Mclaren. He had a couple of bad years at Lotus then was on the up again with Benneton. By then he was pretty much done though
Not to take anything away from Senna's ability as a racer, but I would imagine that his family fortune had helped somewhere along the line of his career. At least he didn't have to worry about it coming to an end due to lack of financial support. Schumacher's father ran a Go-kart track and that's where Micheal got started. As he got older, he also doubled as Ralph's mechanic. The first paycheck he got, he gave it to his father to help with the bills. I think this is why he is a lot more grounded than Senna, who used act like a spoiled child earlier in his career. Mansell's wife mortgaged their house so Manell could continue racing in the lesser series, thus helped him to be recognized as a talent and graduate into F1 later.
His father was against his racing actually, from what i understand he at one point retired from racing and went home to work in the family business, which was car parts and farming i think. He was miserable and his father did help him, but not to the extent that you might think. It also maybe have been a loan which was to be paid back. Not totally sure about that part though.
