How many titles would Senna have won?

I agree with you got be pretty foolish to think that there was no broken pieces and that senna magically went into the wall going straight…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

If the 94 Williams was based on the 93 Williams, one HUGE difference was that in 94 the active suspension was banned.

Regarding the tragic death of Senna and Roland Ratzenberger (and any other driver to die in a race), well, holy crap, whether it was mechanical failure or driver error, the other main issue was the safety design of the track. There is no way to make racing 100% death-free, but for any of us to argue over the cause decades later just seems pointless, unless there are lessons to learn to make things safer. As far as that goes, I think 94 was the first year of the safety car re-start, so you can't blame the drivers or Ayrton Senna for maybe the tires weren't in the right operating range.

 

I believe in proper statistics and mathematical method to disentangle the driver performance and the car performance. This is the best I have seen for the what if scenario;
https://www.google.com/amp/s/f1metrics.wordpress.com/2018/08/04/historical-hypotheticals-part-i/amp/

According to this model, Schumacher has been performing better than Senna since 1994, but if Senna stays at Williams he could have won 2 more titles because of the car performance.

 

Interesting, although with some obvious mistakes, i think it's not that far from the truth...

 

I think Jim Clark was far superior to Stewart - at the time he died. I think Stewart in the long run was his equal. But given that Lotus was by far the best car in 68- I think Clark could easily have won from Hill... I think Matra was the best in 69 - so would have been hard, but definitely in 70 and 71 Lotus with Clark could have won... so yes, 4 or 5 WDC's... if he had stayed on in 72 - that was clearly a Lotus year so yes, he could have had 6. but after that Lotus kind of got stale for about 5 years. However, the other part is that had Clark lived - Chapman may not have been so disillusioned and come up with even more brilliant designs??? sadly we'll never know. I asked Jackie Stewart about Jim Clark about 3 years ago. The question was, how do you think Jim Clark would have adapted to F1 in the 70's?

he said that in the late '60s Jim was getting more worldly, and with his move to Paris was more open but always homesick and that he thought he may have wanted to return home at some point. He thought that Clark would have adapted well to the cars, but not so much to the commercial side of things. I never saw Jim Clark race - my dad met him several times in the '60s and I still have his autograph. the best story I have from my dad was back in 1966 when he won with the BRM Lotus - Clark and Chapman and Gurney were walking up the hill to the Kendall center after the race, and my mom and dad asked for autographs, so he stopped and chatted signed the autograph, at that point Roger Penske came up and said: "Jim, Jim, I'm sorry I was just trying to say the hell out of your way" to which Clark said "oh thanks Roger don't worry about it, "... as they walked away my dad said you could see the huge wad of money in his hip pocket ... back then they paid in cash right at the end of the race.

 

There was as serious effort to get Jackie back in F-1 in 78. Tyrrell and Elf were throwing lots of money at him, and he did a number of tests of other cars... and was filmed doing it but I think Stewart saw that the cars were just as dangerous if not more, and ground effects were harder to deal with. He tested a bunch of Turbo Cars in 88 or 89 - and Williams really used his input, and Renault offered him $30M for two years to return... what is impressive of Stewart is that his impact has lasted.

If he had stayed in 74 - I think he could have taken the fight to Mclaren and Ferrari... he might have had a chance in 75 as well. Tyrrell just did not have good development drivers ... both Depallier and Sheckter were good race drivers but could not work with the tires.... the 6 wheel project likely would not have happened either and wasted all that time and money. the older I get the more impressive Jackie Stewart is. he is the GOAT if you ask me.

 

Senna wasn't robbed anymore than Hamilton was last year. I hate when people claim their driver was robbed simply because they lost.

Even ignoring Suzuka 89' and who's fault it was (Senna's imho), it wouldn't have mattered. Senna crashed out in Australia, so it was a moot point.

Senna's psychotic crashing into Prost the next year to take the title was disgusting, and legitimized an era of dirty driving.

Just because Senna tragically died as a young man doesn't mean his driving ethics were anything other than as dirty as Schumacher's.

 

Who cares about pure speed? If you're not finishing races and you're crashing out, or blowing up the engine/gearbox, it's a moot point how fast your pure speed.

What makes drivers like Prost, Schumacher, Piquet, Lauda, and Hamilton brilliant is that they conserved their cars, and raced with their heads.

To finish first, you must first finish.

 

If you watch the onboard footage of the crash, it steps out at the back, he corrects and then it spears on straight. I suspect that the car bottomed out and skidded on the bump on the inside of Tamburello (the same bump the likes of Hill were avoiding) and it gripped again at the same time as the counter steer.

That's not consistent with a steering column failure where indeed the car would've gone straight off as no steering force would be applied, it would understeer off the track. You actually got your suggestion right if you're arguing the steering column broke, just the wrong way round.

Now whether, like Newey says, it could've been a puncture from the debris on the track from the start line incident or low tyre pressures and running the car too low caused the oversteer, nobody will ever know.

 

Roughly 0:56 in the video below, slow it right down if you need to.

Just as he's about to go over the dark strip of tarmac you can clearly see the car suddenly starts pointing towards the kerb and Senna corrects and that instant he starts going straight off.

Italian law was (and maybe still is) such that they had to find someone guilty for the death. That's why they pushed the steering column angle to make Head, Newey, etc culpable. It was a witch hunt.

 

Notice the bright light under Senna's car just as it veers off course.
A broken steering drive shaft could not have caused that big spark.

 

I have a sneaking suspicion ('could be wrong, of course) that you weren't following back in the early days (let's say '50s, '60s, and '70s) of F1.....metallurgy, design, electronics, and construction have come a long way since then.....let alone the mandated durability of late.

Have you reviewed history of cars finishing races? How many times do you see camshaft, fuel line or fuel injector problems (the ignorant drivers did this? How?) failure these days, for instance?
As quick as Clark and Stewart were, they were also renowned for their mechanical sympathy yet were right up their with the rest regarding DNFs. When cars were torn down after races, their parts always looked new compared to their race finishing teammates, even when their broken parts had failed......
Point being? The parts had flaws, which we rarely see these days. Need I ask....do they change gears themselves these days? I just did.....the answer is....no.....no gear crunching, no missed shifts, no over revving.....)

Driving with their heads?.....DNFs? Have you reviewed history of cars finishing races? As stated earlier, Clark only wrecked only once during his F1 career (contact with von Tripps in '61). Clark, 2 championships in 3 years ('63 & '65); Stewart, 3 championships in 5 years ('69, '71, and '73).....? Yeah, I guess not.....downright dummies.....Fangio too, eh?

Just some things to think about.

 

No, I wasn't following back then, but I know much of the history and saw hundreds of highlight films, read old magazines, review tapes, etc.

On the one hand, drivers in the 50's and 60's and to deal with the dangers of motorsport and conserving the car more so than now, while OTOH, drivers from the 80's forward had to master the rapid technology and deeper fields and more capable competitors.

People get too caught up in stats in my opinion. You measure a driver by how many seasons they competed in, how many races they won that they should've lost, and what they did better than their competitors.

Alberto Acari and Graham Hill are among my all time heroes of racing. Badasses.

 

No offense intended but:
A) Having learned and experiencing are two differnt things.
B) I thought that's what I said about having to maintain. And if you think the men were less intelligent (re: handling new technology) because it was a different time, you don't know that at the time they were doing the same. 'Matter of fact, they haven't changed as much lately as the did back then.....e.g., front engines to rear, space frame to monocoque, wings, mini turbo motors lag vs. n/a, ground effects, active suspension, etc.....all not new today. of those still allowed.What's actually more difficult now?
Learning to squeeze a paddle as opposed to heel and toeing, whilst actually changing the gears? My, my, that must be hard to handle.
C) Drivers active at the sane time is easy to compare. There is no way to compare different occurrences/results besides percentages of diff occurrences/results along a 7 decade timeline..
D) As good as they were, I'd put neither in the same light with the very best. (And I was biased toward Graham, as "my" only team was Colin's Team Lotus.

All good fun during the off-season, eh?

 

Senna lost in '89 due to a calculated FIA agenda and bias.

Hamilton lost due to a heat of the moment blunder.

Very different in my view.

 

Speculating how many titles would Senna have won is like guessing how long is a piece of string.

The answer to that can only be subjective.

 

william.....c'mon now.....

I know you know that estimating the the length of a piece of string is easier
then Senna's WDCs, not knowing who he'd be driving for.

[I know, I did it with Jim, but that was easy considering he would undoubtedly have stayed
with Colin for his whole career and that he would have bettered any teammate
those seasons that were won by Lotus (WCC) or it's drivers (WDC). ]

 

1 - He WAS robbed on 1989, that's a fact. Prost waited until Senna was besides him to turn on him.
2 - 1990 was a payback and it was not Senna who crashed on Prost. He did not crashed on Prost during braking, nor he moved the car over Prost. He put the car to overtake and left to Prost the decision to crash or not. I am in not way saying Senna was correct, he knew they would crash.
3 - ALL great champions have a special skill to leave the oponent the decision to crash or not, and Senna was no different. Verstappen is an example of that. Are you going to play the good boy? You won't become a champion, ever.

 

I must disagree. Things have changed. There are numerous greats that were gentlemen on and off the circuits. It's sad that this has changed (both).

 

There is quite a lot of revisionism going on about Senna. Some still see him through rose-tinted glasses in spite of the havoc he created.

But you are right there was a lot more respect, fairness and sportmanship years ago.

Probably because F1 cars were just flimsy petrol tanks then, and any crash could be fatal. Now, there is hardly any risk involved.

People thought twice before engaging aggressively with an opponent, and there was hardly any contact or intimidation like we see currently now.

Drivers like Regazzoni or Patrese were shunned by their peers for a while for having caused fatal accidents.

After Peterson's death, the drivers (led by Lauda) went on strike for Patrese to be suspended!

 

Agreed to an extent, but what's the reason for the off-track nonsense?
I believe there's a difference in character also, again for both on and off.......

 

Pure revisionist delusions.

Senna, even with the favoritism of Honda at McLaren, was constantly overcooking the engine and gearbox, and getting into crashes. If he wasn't winning, he wasn't finishing. That's not a conspiracy by the FIA or anyone else, that's a fact, and it was totally on Senna.

As for the crash, it was totally Senna's fault. There was no way he was going to make that move work. it was way too late in the braking zone, and there wasn't enough of a gap for it to ever work. Even James Hunt he was friends with Senna stated the incident was his fault. Nobody alleged Prost did anything deliberate, including Senna and Dennis themselves.

Senna's beef that he was robbed was not based on any allegation that Prost had intentionally wrecked him, but that disqualification in Japan was unfair and cost him the title, even though he crashed out in Australia the next week, rendering the whole argument pointless. Had Senna won in Australia, I could at least see how his supporters could be salty about Japan. But for god sake, he crashed in Australia!

And when it comes to 1990, it doesn't matter what was happening off track politically, or that Senna was starting on the dirty side of the track. That happens at tons of races. He absolutely had a point, but to RAM INTO Prost to resolve it? Absolutely disgusting. Even worse than Schumi.

If anything, Prost was absolutely robbed out of the 1990 title, as he would've won it without Senna crashing him of the course.

 

It depends if you are pushing the string or pulling on it.

 

This is EXACTLY the situation that happened to Max at Silverstone 2021 (except for the payback part).

 

Agreed, you just beat me to it: sheer revisionnism.

In 1989, if Senna was robbed, it was by none other than him. After the Imola incident, when he did not respect his word and overtaked Prost where he shouldn't have, Prost was very clear that he felt cheated and that he would never again open the door more than necessary; he stated that again before Suzuka. Senna, being convinced that he had a God's right to be in front, tried and lost: 100% his fault
In 1990 Senna himself admitted in an interview one year later that he speared into Prost totally on purpose, as a "revenge" for 1989. A revenge for his own blunder. If some here are old enough to remember, after the 1990 shunt, Jackie Stewart (of whom we are talking about earlier) said: "the trouble with Senna is that he is convinced to always be absolutely right; all dictators are the same" (In fact Stewart didn't say "all dictators" he quoted a name that I rather left suggested)

And before someone suspects me to be pro-Prost as I am French, let me remind everyone here again that Prost never was very popular in France; I'm sure that Senna was in fact more popular than Prost here. I had no bias at the time; I just watched them race; I admired Senna's speed, but not his lack of ethics neither his paranoïa; he thought that he had a God's right on everything, and that he could never be wrong; but in fact, from time to time, he displayed some serious lack of judgement.
Talent, yes; class, fairness: sorry, definitively no. Not in the same class as Stirling Moss, for instance.

Rgds