modern Senna

IMHO we no longer have a professor or a Senna simply because of the changes in F1. I rather prefer to just remember both as they were in their heyday and smile because I was watching that era.

 

Vettel is probably going to be a Triple WDC by the time he's 25. He's ridiculously fast over 1 lap like Senna was (already has 35 poles) and has almost 30 wins. At 25. That's "not even close?" What more do you want?

Honestly, I feel as though when you look at this objectively and leave all the romantic BS at the door, there's a couple guys on the grid RIGHT NOW that are very close to Senna. Vettel and Alonso surely.

MS has already been better than Senna in the past but he isn't right now, so he's out of the running as far as the current grid goes. Personally, I think it takes a severe case of rose-tinteds to not consider Alonso or Vettel as "close" to Senna's abilities.

 

You make some very good points. But nope, still gotta disagree...... [Even with the rose tinteds on!]

Senna (along with Jimmy, Schu and IMO Gilles) were simply on a different planet when it matttered. I guess JMF too, but never saw him.

I think the analogy in other sports would be Pele, Messi, Gretzky, Jordan and Rice - Witness them at their best and you know you're seeing something special. It's not even driving or ball control ability, it's an intangible - "Greatness" maybe?.....

Reach that level, you're good (& lucky) - Those guys went beyond that and none of the current guys have, at least as yet, IMO.

Cheers,
Ian

 

To me, and maybe it is selective memory, but Emo seemed a Brazilian hero from afar. A little lofty and disconnected. Not that he wasn't/isn't loved. But Senna had more of connection, an empathy that only he was capable of, with all Brazilians. This was even before it came out the extent of his charitable giving.

The complete package of Senna is what makes him most compelling to me. We can argue all day long about who was the better driver between Senna and Prost as contemporaries, or with Alonso and Vettel crossing eras.

The public's fixation on Senna transcends his ample driving skill and is set apart more than any other driver because of his humanity and paradoxes.

 

+1

Nicely stated.

I'd go even further; he had an empathy with all motor sport fans. To watch him, be it in FF, F3 or F1 was to "get it" - He truly was that good.

Cheers,
Ian

 

Indeed.

Some interesting pairings coming up.

The obvious choices are JB & Mcham.....

"This is why we watch".

OTOH, I'm batting .333 -v- Isobel in my previous picks......

Cheers,
Ian

 

The FW16 was a Newey car like this year's RB8 - flawed at the start of the year, then developed to be a winner. 1994 was Williams' first car in 3 years that didn't have active suspension and all the techno-wizardry they had so expertly developed, and according to both Head and Newey, it took them a while to catch up and figure out how to set up the car's conventional passive suspension again.

(and let's not forget that the 1994 Benetton was most likely running illegal traction control, also).

Honestly, if Senna had not been killed in 94, the 94 title was his - and the 95 title which Hill bungled, and the 96 title which Hill won, and the 97 title that JV won, if he had continued to race those years. While Schumacher would have been his greatest challenger, it's hard to argue with those predictions... Which would have left Senna with up to 7 titles, and Schultz with only 5 (assuming Ferrari would have hired him, Brawn, etc at all without the two Benetton titles).

Senna schooled Schumacher in the rain at Donington 93 - Schu wasn't even close. I don't see any question that Senna was still a superior driver to Schumacher.

 

I agree. had Senna lived he *could* have won 4 straight titles with Williams.

what might have been....

 

You beat me to it. I have been telling all the "shumi" fans for years that if Senna had lived MS would have at least two titles less. I saw all the greats of the 80's 90's drive and Senna was on a different level, especially when it came to commitment. Prost was amazing to watch, but having witnessed Senna trying to go flat through Eau Rouge in practice there will only ever be one for me. Of course i didn't see Jimmy, Sterling or Juan in their day..

 

There is no modern day parallel to Ayrton Senna. There is no one that even comes close imo, but if I had to pick one from the current lot now, it would be Alonso...he's consistently able to drive the wheels off very inferior cars and deliver results beyond the car's original design capabilities and he's brilliant in the wet. All things Ayrton was also amazing at and remembered for.

 

Another thing that has to be considered is Senna's car was probably a lot harder to drive than the automated ones of today. And current F1 cars handle better (and more predictable) too. For many reasons, it's really hard to compare drivers of different eras IMO.

 

Agreed, he truly was significantly special, those of us that had the good fortune of watching him live can truly appreciate how great he was. Even Michael Schumacher has said he was the greatest (and I think he knows a thing of two about driving). Fred and Seb are great, they are just not Senna (no shame in that).

 

Ayrton was a real hero in Brazil.....a lot bigger than Piquet, because nelson was a very diferent kind of person...he never really liked popularity, and he was not very much loved, Senna on the other hand was a much better public relations, with kids and journalists...Piquet was a screw-up, always bad mouthing everyone...(i tell you guys, his interviews are epic, i laugh myself to death everytime because of the way he talks about other drivers..he is so mean, lololo Mansell of course being his favourite target!!...but he also talks crap about Senna, Prost, De Cesaris, Fittipaldi, Barrichelo (another one of his favourites) and the list goes on and on....i guess the only 3 guys he ever had kind words about were Gilles, Alesi and Shumacher....you could start a trhead just with stories about the **** he pulled up on Ron Dennis and Mansell (these 2 realy suffered on his hands!!!), lolo.

 

Well, Senna coped better than Hill with that car, he outqualified him and was faster in the race. The problem was that Senna was trying too hard and crashed too often.

I think that Senna is Senna not only because he won a lot or because he came from Brazil, there were other highly succesful Brazilian drivers before him. I suppose that his somewhat misterious/bizarre personality and the fact that he died with the boots on in an era when people was not used to see drivers dying contributed to build the legend.

 

As a novice watcher, I think one problem is with the current cars it is really hard to tell who is a good driver until the clock ticks off the lap time. You can't look at the car and know, because if they are loose or man-handling it, it's not fast and all you know is they aren't doing it right. The fast drivers and fast cars look smooth and seamless and frankly - easy.

In the old days, it was visually apparent how aggressively someone was driving. Those days are gone. Now watching is much more technical and less artistic.

So I am left to like or dislike personality. And Vet has an infectious personality, where Hammy is a prima donna.

 

Talk about rampant speculation! 1994 title his? Uh, not by a long shot. MS was smoking him (including making him crack under pressure while trying to run down MS at his home GP). Schumi had a 30 point lead and Senna would have been VERY hard pressed to beat him that year had he lived through his crash at Imola. The only reason the title was close at the end was the ridiculous FIA suspension given to Schumacher in an attempt to tighten up what was a blowout WDC battle.

1995 title Senna's? I don't think so. Schumacher was untouchable in 1995. Hill didn't bungle anything, he was destroyed by Michael. Had Senna still been racing in 1995, we probably would have seen something like 2006 (a young superstar beating an aging superstar in a close battle like Schumi and Alonso).

Even saying the 1996 or 1997 titles would have been his is not a guarantee. Senna would have been 37 by then and he was already losing his nerve in 1994 (mulling over quitting). Sure he would have been in the best car by miles and would have gotten it done had he kept driving but I think he would have retired in 1994 or possibly 1995 after being beaten by Schumacher both years. Schumacher had already beaten Senna once while driving worse machinery in 1992, he wouldn't have trouble doing it again in equal machinery as he began to reach the zenith of his career.

Senna's drive at Donington was amazing, but you can't cherry pick races and say Senna was better than Schumacher because of one race. Spain 1996, Monaco 1997 and Spa 1997 are every bit as impressive. Even this year, well into his 40s, Schumacher has put a turd at the front of the grid when it has rained in qualifying and schooled the field at Montreal last year in the wet.

How about Spain 1992? MS simply beat Senna in that wet race. Senna cracked under pressure from Alesi and spun off at the end but Michael was far up the road anyway. What we saw at Donington was a driver in a complete zone, like Michael at Spain in 1996.

Regardless it is a damn shame that Senna passed away when he did because the F1 world was deprived of some titanic battles between Schumacher and Senna.

 

Great point(s). The mysterious aura around Senna was certainly intriguing. The non-F1 fans I have watched the Senna film with have alluded to this fact.

 

Case of beer on it? I'll take Jenson

 

Yeah, because the FIA had such a history of manipulating F1 to prevent title blowouts. That's why McLaren was prevented from winning 16 of 16 races in 1988, that's why Mansell didn't win the title in 1992 until over half way through the season, that's why Prost was held up winning the 1993 title, because the FIA always attempted to tighten up those blowout WDC years.

You should realize how ridiculous that suggestion is - just because it was Schumacher who was penalized because his team played loose with the rules does not mean that the penalties weren't justified. There was no history to suggest that the FIA cared at all whether a title race was a blowout or not.

Honestly, if HILL could take the title race to the last race and Schumacher had to resort to a deliberate collision to win the title, how could Senna have not won? The faults in the first few races were with the Williams, not with Senna, and as already pointed out, Newey and Head developed that car quickly into a winner.

 

The penalty:

"Hill and Schumacher stayed together, separated by two seconds until on lap 14, where Schumacher was given a five-second time penalty for passing Hill on the parade lap. However, the team refused to accept the decision and appealed the process. Schumacher was then given a 5 second stop go penalty for passing on the parade lap and for the team arguing the penalty. The team told him to ignore this as they were appealing the decision. Schumacher stayed out beyond the three laps required to adhere to the penalty, which was imposed. Schumacher was then shown the black flag meaning he was excluded from the race and from that point would have to return to the pits and retire. However Benetton continued to negotiate and appeal the decision. Schumacher did return to the pits on lap 26, but only for the 5 second stop-go penalty now served and re-joined the race in third behind Burger and Hill."

Banned for two races for that? I mean really? Also, Mika Hakkinen passed another car on the warmup lap and nothing happened to him. You cite two years of utter domination, and that's fine. However, anyone can see that 1994 was different. The sport just lost it's biggest star and seemed to be in disarray. You don't think Bernie wanted a close WDC fight? Even others on this forum that dislike MS agree with me, the penalty was ridiculously harsh.

MS lost a further 10 points at Spa after a spin wore down his plank on the bottom of the car excessively and despite winning he was DQed.

That's rich. I suppose it was Williams that made Senna spin and stall the car in Brazil while making a futile attempt to catch Schumacher.

I find it funny that here you dismiss my suggestions about the 1994 season as "ridiculous" and then can assuredly state that Senna would have easily reeled off 4 titles in a row. Nevermind that MS had already proved he could beat him, was destroying him in 1994 and only got better in 1995. Senna, on the other hand, was only getting older and losing his nerve. It's quite clear Senna was reevaluating his desire to be in F1 as early as 1994 yet here you are pompously saying without a shred of evidence that he would not only stay in F1 but easily win 4 more titles against a young and hungry MS.

Let's come back to reality.

 

So you actually, sincerely, bought that lame excuse offered by Walkinshaw and Briatore, those paragons of virtue and honesty? Really? I gave you much more credit than that. I seem to recall the FIA dismissing that pretty pathetic excuse by pointing out that the excessive wear was consistent and extensive, not lateral and isolated as it would have been if a single spin across a curb had caused it.

I also give you credit enough to know you understand that when a car handles poorly and a driver is pushing it to the limit and beyond in order to compete, spins etc. are more likely to happen. With a dominant car that only needs to be driven to 95%, spins are much less likely. So yes, it was because the Williams at that point was a poor handling car that wasn't as quick as the Benetton that made it more likely that Senna would spin.

Nothing any more pompous about my statements than yours, so how about we just leave those sorts of unnecessary descriptions out?

However - I certainly did not claim that "he would not only stay in F1", I specifically and deliberately said "if he had continued to race those years". With respect to needing "a shred of evidence", I also labelled my note as a prediction - tell me how you have any "evidence" to the contrary for your prediction? At that point, they are opinions, and the prior facts are interpreted as we each choose. "Evidence"?? Seriously?