How many titles would Senna have won?

Negatory. CART didn't fold due to less ovals. Proof being IndyCar's prority/desire to add more road/city courses as quick as they can, not ovals. (btw, so is NASCAR)

 

I think we have a problem of comprehension here, so I will explain one more time. I suspect it's only you who needs that explanation.

To avoid hideous crashes, I suggested replacing the outside wall on some bankings by a substantial gravel run-off area, but you are adament that it's impossible because the cars will take off, fly, or God knows what. I don't see why.
What make a car hits the wall in a banked corner most of the time? the centrifugal force that attracts it outside where it meets a solid obstacle.
Now replace the obstacle by a gravel bed, where the car can go on a tangent, loose grip then speed and beach itself in the soft surface, without much harm done.
Of course the surface of the gravel run-off area would have to be in continuation of the banking, ( and NOT drop off like in your drawing !!!) which has often less than 20°of inclination.

Advantages? There would be far less damage to the car and less risk to the driver in case of accident. Less brutal deceleration, reduced fire risk, etc ...
Following cars would no be affected by the vehicle bouncing back on the track, flying debris, etc ... Recovery time would be reduced, shorter safety car periods ...

The drawbacks? Most existing banked circuits would have to be modified, since they were never built to allow that concept. Not all are suitable.
Ovals have been built with the intention of keeping the spectators close to the action on the track, and run-offs would not allow that, I admit.
But new tracks, could incorporate such gravel run-offs in their layout.

Now, that was a suggestion when Zandvoort planned a new banking; I thought it would be a good opportunity to try a new concept, but they didn't. Fine.
I don't expect NASCAR to change all its tracks either.

Capiche ?

 

Seriously now.....really? When did they reduce the banking of turns 1-4 to the same as the tri-oval.....???

Are you okay, william? I am truly concerned.

 

No, I don't Capiche.
And no, WE don't "have a problem with comprehension", I know who does though.

You say this only just now, after all the back and forth during the Zandvoort thread, and only after my explanation for you tody. It was YOUR HORIZONTAL runoff suggestion. It's one thing to be mistaken; it's another to try and revise history, and try to rationalixe it, when the reality is still there (see below)......nice try though.....

At least you finally got it today, that makes me very happy. As per earlier, no más.

 

How did we go from senna winning more titles to this [emoji23]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Correct. I was at the Texas practice sessions that became disturbingly fast. The race cancellation indeed was a black eye on CART, but that wasn't what killed the series completely.

When Juan Montoya won the Indy 500 it created a rift, because Toyota was bitter that he wasn't carrying their name on his car, as they only built engines for CART. That pushed them into making the decision to begin building an engine for the Indy 500 and the IRL, and they made clear they would only be building one engine, which mean they wouldn't be building a turbo charged engine, which meant they would be out of CART.

To try and keep Toyota, CART decided to change to the NA engine formula of the IRL. Honda warned them this would make competing in CART pointless, as the series would no longer have its own identity, and that they needed time to prepare for such a move anyway. But CART pushed forward with the switch anyways, and both Honda and Ford were not happy with how much money it would cost them, so Honda decided to once and for all leave CART at the end of 02'.

Funny enough, that switch to NA engines never did come about. New CEO Chris Pook reversed that move, but it was too late. Both Toyota and Honda said they had lost confidence in CART, and were now ready to switch their money and teams to the IRL. That meant contracted teams like Ganassi, Penske, Green, Mo Nunn, Rahal-Letterman, and Fernandez made the switch, along with the races at Michigan, Homestead, Fontana, Nazareth Motegi, Mid Ohio, Detroit, and St Petersburg.

JPM winning the Indy 500 just to show how much better CART drivers were over IRL drivers triggered the collapse of CART.

 

Juuuussst like thisss.....

(In other words, my dismissing of wiliam's answer )
Again as earlier, no más from me on this subject.

 

3

 

You are far too argumentative, and I don't need this.

 

I wasn't arguing with you. I was responding to Nat's question.

 

In US single seater racing, the Indy 500 has always stood out as the cherry on the cake.

When Tony George created the IRL in competition against CART, the die was cast.

The organisation that had the Indy 500 on its calendar would win in the end.

 

LOLOLOLOLO

 

It really doesn't matter if Senna could have won more races or titles.
He died, end of story. Everything else is speculation.

 

Well agreed but that’s the all purpose of this thread which the op started, nothing else


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I agree with Mitch.....to a degree. There's some worse stuff on here, that's for sure.
And heck, it's the off season, so, why not. 'Don't like it? Don't read it. Simple.
Like I said, it's not my favourite.....and besides, there's some really annoying stuff (on most threads, no?).....but I still enjoy perusing other's thoughts.

 

This is a Mean old Man statement - the kids today, that have just recently come to F-1 have no idea about racing - and how much art and science there is - was in the past. your note on Clark and Stewart as well as all the greats like Fangio is 100% correct - take out that even the slightest spin could have been lethal back then, just driving the cars at speeds in excess of 160 mph on thin tires, wafer-like suspensions etc... sitting in the middle of 104 octane gas ( don't know how many have had the pleasure to have a fuel burn... I have - not fun) as it leaks through the monocoque.

I get that its easy to revere Senna - and Schumacher etc... there is abundant footage - and when you die in a racing car there is a mythology that sets up around you that people only see the "great stuff" .... the reality is in the 50'-early 80's it was lethal - watch the movie 1 about formula one - and it explains it in detail..... until you have seen an F-1 car from the 70's corner at Monza or Watkins Glen with no runoff, no barriers etc... and see the precision needed to nurse one of those cars and do it over and over and win... then you will have an appreciation of skill.

I know its hard for modern drivers = Stewart and Clark did not have to cope with 7G's and all the technical things, but from the Art of driving - it was WAY harder in the past. Senna and Prost - Schumacher for one or two years had to shift gears, manage the car on their own.... and still win.

Hamilton has never had to do that. He's always benefited from telemetry, video playback, overlying traces of a lap digital comparison of lap times that have been computer analyzed, while working with performance coaches, two-way communication, and having a team of over 200-300 behind running your car. Fangio had about 8 people run the car, no communication other than a pit board, no physio, no lap analysis - maybe an engineer to look at tires and engine performance, no data logging, and no performance coach. He ran F-1 Sports cars, stock cars, even dirt racing ( in Argentina ) while doing some press, and sponsorship - and having a job with Mercedes - and owning his own dealership....

I'm not trying to argue - but bring some real perspective on F-1 drivers and the stresses that they had in their day as a comparison. Today's drivers have to perform at a very narrow edge of the limit at all times - it's hard I get it, but they also have a much lower risk threshold, vastly higher compensation and time to focus on the job, and immensely more help. Finally to be an F-1 world champion is to be the BEST - period. so we are arguing over a very limited set of highly talented people that would do well in almost any time - any category given the right circumstances.

 

Image Unavailable, Please Login

(Becaaauuuse.....a simple "like"...won't do......)

 

Was watching this morning. It’s in French. Pretty much Jean Alesi says it’s IMPOSSIBLE that Ayrton made a driving error, impossible and that he is 100% sure his steering column broke


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

This is old news. The Italian legal system tends to blame the constructor of the car involved in case of a fatal crash.
They did it to Colin Chapman when Von Trips was killed at Monza following a crash with Clark's Lotus.
The same again happened when Jochen Rindt was killed in a Lotus in 1970 also at Monza.
After Senna's death, the prosecutor held Frank Williams and Patrick Head responsible for a while.
The enquiry couldn't determine if the breakage of the steering column was caused by criminal negligence.

 

Seriously someone could really believe Senna made a mistake that day ?

 

Quite a few on this forum have written stupid stuff like this sadly…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I've always believed it to be so. But now that the Gospel has spoken, I guess now I know, eh?..... Aie yi-yi.

Simply put.....yes, I could. I wasn't sitting beside him.....'wasn't even there.....so how could I know, one way or t'other???
Oh, I forgot. Jean Alesi says........

 

Google translation isn’t enough to understand everything you wrote ..( joking ).

You are right, Senna wasn’t good enough to master a Formula one car ..( joking again )

 

For some it's like "How can God makes mistakes?"

It's blasphemy to suggest it.

No one can prove of dismiss it one way or the other.

This is another case where emotions can take over.

Facts are that Senna made many mistakes in his career.

 

Indeed he made some mistakes during his career but Tamburello was a high speed curve without any kind of driving difficulties for a Formula one driver.
Piquet in 1987 and Berger in 1989 were both victims of mechanical failures in the very same place.