Senna in '94

I always thought it was the shoddy steering column that did him in, but discussions on here and arguments from 62 250 GTO made me reconsider that and I start to believe in driver error as in pushing to hard with cold tires, bottoming out and hitting the wall.

If that is true, then I think it is fair to say, that Senna lost the ultimate battle against Schumacher. That might sound cruel, but I do believe that MS beat him fair and squair in 94 up to Imola and would probably have even if Senna lived. Senna made one mistake after another building up to Imola (one of the reasons why he was so under pressure) and he did that in the superior car.

You guys know I'm often enough very critical about MS (e.g. Monaco was his fault, not JPM's), but I do think Senna was or would have been clearly beaten by MS in 94. Senna was past his zenith.

The rest of 94 btw was nothing but a scheme: All that nonsense about the fuel hose for the Benetton's and the wooden plank infringements, just to keep the plot entertaining by keeping MS from winning the WC prematurely. MS did drive Hill off the road in Adelaide, but that was just fair, given all the nonsense the FIA did to him all season long.

As I said, I'm not a MS fan, so keep my statements in perspective. Please.

 

As I said before I apologize if I have said anything out fo line. Talking about the accident is a very difficult subject. Too many people's heros and passions involved. Just like Senna will always remain a hero of many, Schumacher will remain my hero forever. I can see the diffculty you may have in accepting my reasoning and I in no way want to influence your opinion or thoughts. To me my reason for Senna's death makes perfect sense and it is my way of dealing with the tragedy. Everyone will have their own way of explaining the accident.

I am and will always remain a die hard MS fan so I think I will be bias no matter what de does or who is at fault. So I can see why Senna fans may reject my explanation.

tifosi12: I agree 100%. MS would have risen to the challenge and probably beaten Senna. I think that MS would have won the 6 titles he has won because Senna had past his prime. But make no mistake Senna would have given him a tough fight and probably given us some very memorable races in the process.

 

As we've said many times before in this thread, a piece of the right-wheel's suspension pierced his vizor, entering above the right eyebrow. The steering wheel itself had nothing to do with his actual injuries.

---

After hearing all this talk about the car bottoming out and losing control, I decided to take a close look at the onboard footage I have of Senna's final lap.
At the beginning of the video, it shows Senna screaming down the Tamburello bend, followed closely be Schumacher. This footage was taken from a camera by the side of the track. At one point, as Senna was driving past a blue sign, a shower of sparks emerged from the bottom of the car. Ok, so the car bottomed out at that moment. The video then cut to in-car footage, where we traveled with Senna for his last ever lap. After this lap was completed, and Senna was once again travelling on Tamburello, the onboard footage showed the moment when the car did a series of very quick and small yaw movements, following which the car was pointing in a direction that would take it off the track. Then as we all know the footage ends 1.8 seconds before impact.
What I noticed after repeated viewing was that the location along Tamburello where the car made the rapid yaw movements which put Senna off the track at the end of the video, was the exact same location along Tamburello that Senna's Williams sprayed a shower of sparks precisely one lap before at the beginning of the video.

So this really does leave one thinking that bottoming-out and subsequent loss of control were the reasons for his crash. The fact that the Williams at the time was considered to be inherently unstable and twitchy to drive probably further contributed to the likelyhood of loss-of-control at one stage or another.

Schumacher himself believed that Senna has just lost control when viewing what happened from behind in his Benetton.

 

As usual, you are talking nonsense. The fact that Damon Hill ran him down Schumacher to 1 pt for the 94 championship, Senna dominated Hill should be proof enough that Senna would have been 94 Champion. Senna had 3 poles and only was past in the pits by Schumacher in Brazil in 94, in Aida he got punted. What happen in 93? Senna had 5 wins with a Ford Customer V8, so Senna was past his prime at the age of 34. The fact was that Williams had a very poor handling car that Senna's ability put him on those 3 poles in 94, the car was getting better at Imola, and Tamburello was a flat curve, something went wrong with the car. Had Senna not died and the Williams Renault being what it was he would have been Champion in 94, 95,96, and 97. Benetton would not have even gotten the Renault in 95 had Senna lived.

The funny thing was that in 94 Benetton had an illegal fuel rig, and Traction and Launch Control that was verified and fined by the FIA. I have no doubt Schumacher would have been the next great driver. But he reaped the benefits of Senna's death, Prost retirement, and Mansell's old age. Schumacher is 35 in his prime and the best driver on the planet. Why don't you take a minute and watch the 93 season, before you mouth off again.

 

I have been very civil in discussing this potential rivalry between Senna and MS had Senna not died. If you had read mt earlier post you would have seen that I said Senna would have given MS a tight run for the championships he won. In fact the whle F1 scenario for those years would have been different.

But you still did not comprehend what I was say and call my thoughts nonsense. So I will respond in kind by saying that you are talking NONSENSE. If you look at the points when Senna died in 1994 Schumcher had already beaten him in the Brazillian and Pacific (Aida, Japan) GPs. Even at the San marino GP Schumacher would have won regardless of the accident. Senna was puching hard and unable to match Schumachers pace. I have seen the 93 season and 94 season in full.

This is exactly why talking about Senna and his driving error that caused the accident is so hard because people take it personally. He was a hero to millions and something close to God like figure. So I understand why you lost your cool and decided to call my thoughts nonsense.

 

Actually Tamburello at the time was quoted by several drivers as being bumpy. Yes, it was a gentle, albeit fast, sweeping curve, but did have an uneven undulating surface around where Senna went off. I believe one of the Williams drivers warned another about the surface during that race weekend. These bumps along with a car bottoming out could very well have sent the car off course.

To say that the car could only have gone off course as a result of some dramatic mechanical failure is utter nonsense. The car impacted the wall at a relatively shallow angle of around 25 degrees. So in the end, the car did not veer off course by a massive amount at all. However, due to the already very high speeds, and lack of runoff, it was enought to send the car into the wall.

In the time between impact and Senna going off the track, investigators found that the car was experiencing maximum decelerative forces of around 4G due to 100% braking. So the final impact speed of 200kmph at around 25 degrees should have been a very survivable accident. However, the fact that there was no runoff, a solid wall to impact instead of a tyre barrier and most of all the right wheel and it's suspension striking him in the head was a particular chain of events that ensured Senna would not survive. Luck just wasn't on his side.

Fortunately because of new safety regulations, the likelihood of seeing a similar chain of events culminating in a fatal accident has been greatly reduced.

 

Just as a refresher of memory: The reason the championship got close was that the FIA banned Schumacher for some of the races. Totally political and unfair move: He spun at Spa over the (famously high) curbs and cerrated his wooden plank. They decided that made it illegal and took away his victory. By today's standards they wouldn't decide like that again.

Whether that fuel rig was illegal or not is debatable. Whether it would have brought them any advantage is highly doubtful. Just read Steve Matchett's book "Life in the fast lane" about the 94 season. He talks in length about the fuel rig.

Matchett also talks about the alleged electronic infringements and it becomes clear, whatever Benetton did or did not have was pretty much common to the top teams (Mc Laren, Williams, Ferrari).

The Williams was generally considered the superior car. Don't take my word for it, just read some of the magazines/reports from that year. Or the biography of Schumacher or Senna. Or the book about Hill's title win. Senna in 94 in the Williams was a foregone conclusion by anybody's standards. The unknown Schumacher in the Benetton was clearly the underdog.

As I said, I'm not totally sure MS would have won, but probably. We will never know. But MS rattled Senna more than just a bit. And yes, we have all been deprived of a great battle all year long.

 

There is no doubt in my mind that Senna took MS very seriously as Prost did with Senna and Lauda did previously with Prost. At some point Schumacher would have become the man, by that time I think Senna would have packed it in.

Alboreto and Rosberg also said that Tamburello was a flat out turn that should have been no problem for someone of Senna's caliber at the Trial in Italy.

If you read an excellent Biography of Senna by Tom Rubython, about the accident, from previous evidence that was not submitted in the trial but was on the Williams telemetry that was never sent to the court, the key was that the Williams engineers (Patrick Head) felt that there was a major problem with the Power Steering System. There was some kind of fluctuation in the system that may have momentarily affected the steering. The reason is that Senna's 6th lap with full fuel was the third fastest lap of the race that was only exceeded near the end of the race by Schumacher and Hill. That is why the bottoming and low pressure tires may not be the result of his accident. The next lap was the accident.

As far as the FIA intervening on the Championship in 94 that is correct, Schumacher at that point was in a league of his own. However, Matchett was a Benetton Mechanic and of course he was going to defend his team concerning the electronics and Fueling. The fuel Rig that caught Matchett on fire was something that at the time was allowing the fuel to run much quicker due to lack of a filter to enhance the quickness of the Benetton Fuel stops. That was a result of a crooked Team Manager like Tom Walkinshaw. When the FIA confiscated McLaren and Benetton's ECU only the Benetton showed the Launch and Traction Controls on the system being extremely viable and therefore they were fined $500,000. At the time Schumacher was becoming the NEXT STAR, the FIA did not want to go so far as making too much of an issue after the other problems of 94.

Senna lost Aida because he got punted in the first corner not that he got beat in the race, as far as losing in Imola we will never know. But onething that Frank Williams and Patrick Head always said was the car was far from developed in the early races and got much more refined after Imola, best example is Hill's positions in the latter races in qualifying. True the FW14B was a superior car but that was not the car Senna had.

Imperial 183 the reason I think you talk a lot of B.S. is because Senna was just 34 when he died and he was in his prime if you look at his 93 Season and his 3 poles from those first 3 races in a car that should have not been in that position in 94. MS is 35 right now and at the peak of his powers just as Senna was in 94. Do you think that MS is past his prime?

All you stat freaks look at how many champions there were in the 80's and early 90's that Senna competed with. Even Bernie Ecclestone and Jackie Stewart say the competition among the cars and drivers were much better than now. I am not denying that Schumacher is the greatest driver of his generation, I just believe that had Senna not died F1 would be completely different than Schumacher's record is now.

We have 18 races now in much more reliable cars than when Senna was racing. Senna had a 4 time champion like Prost in the same car. I guess that if MS had had a guy like Hakkinen in the same car, than there would be no doubts on his greatness.

 

If you really want my opinion here it is... but let me warn you it will be a bitter pill to swallow. You cannot judge the prime of a driver by what age he is at. Driving prime depends upo mind set, motivation, desire to improve and performance. The prime of a driver does not depend upon age. Yes age and motivation and desire to learn go hand in hand to a certain extent but not always. Certainly not in the case of Michaeal Schumacher. So you are wrond in equating age with a the prime of a driver's racing abilities. Don't do that again.

According to me Michael Schumacher was always a better driver than Senna. The reason why people like Senna was that he was a great compasionate driver who had great driving skills. Michael Schumacher however is the greatest driver period. So comparing when each of these individuals hit their prime is not a good comparison because you are comparing Senna, a good driver, to Schumacher who is simply the best F1 driver ever. I think Schumacher is better skilled, technically sound and has more driving abilities than Senna ever had or would have developed if he had lived. Schumacher is simply the master of race strategy.

Now don't get me wrong, think Senna was a great driver. He was a great human being who was an idol for many people worldwide and his kindness and generosity surpass many. Senna hit is prime in 91 when he won his last world championship it was all down hill from there. Then in 92 he lost out clearly to Schumacher who was finished 3rd overall and Senna finished 4th. In 93 Senna made a bit of a comeback and Schumacher had quite a few driving errors so Senna ended up in 2nd overall with Schumacher in 4th.

The fatal 94 season would have probably given Senna a victory or two. But Senna had little motivation left and his mind set was simply not there. many people close to him have questioned his mind set on the day of the accident. I think Michael still has not crossed his prime. He keeps on improving. He has the desire to win more and the motivation. Michael will stay in F1 till some driver raises their game to beat him in a championship. So long story short, I dont think Michael has hit his prime yet. Senna hit his prime in 91 and it was all down hill from there. You cannot equate the prime of a driver to age. Age has no bearing on when the driver hit his prime. Yes age correlates with factors such as motivation, desire to improve, and performance but not always and age cannot be considered a direct factor.

 

Imperial, you have got to be kidding with your reasoning right? Senna was in his prime in 91? You don't look at the car that he had in 92 which was wayoff what McLaren had done previoulsy, just as McLaren has done this year. Your logic is flawed. In 91-93 Senna was selected as the #1 driver by Autocourse Publication's book, I think the people that pick the drivers know a lot more than you and me.

In 93 Senna had a "Customer Ford Engine" and he won five races, what did Schumacher win? Oh one race and as I recall Senna was not in his prime the way he won Donnington.

Your Opinion is simply your Opinion, kinda like A-Holes, everyone has one. F1 Racing Magazine which comprised 77 different people from Team Owners, Engineers (including Ross Brawn and Rory Byrne), Engineers, Journalist (International) picked Senna as NUMERO UNO and Fangio as #2.

So your opinion is your opinion, that is how you feel about Schumacher doesn't make it FACT, period.

 

SIX WORLD CHAMPIONSHIPS IS A BIG BIG BIG FACT!!!
Oh and when the SEVENTH WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP ROLES AROUND it will be a bigger fact!!!

oh and by the way... the F1 opinion pole you are talking about was highly biased because of Senna's tragic accident and the way people loved him. So that F1 racing magazine pole was a 77 person strong popularity contest. No one is claiming Schumacher is the most popular champion. This is not a popularity contest!!! This is F1 racing!

 

I also think Senna simply wasn't there anymore in the stability sense. He had his skill, his passion, his aim to keep beating out the perfect pole. But the crying to Prost (Autosport) and his girlfriend, the cold attitudes to team owners and bosses (F1 Mag), and most importantly this unfamiliar German face rocking his perfect world threw him off. In a book by Christopher Hilton and another by his girlfriend, Adriane Galisteau, he openly talked of retirement, his quarrels with the owners, and his frustation having no idea why MS was beating him. Im not saying he was past his prime, but take your current occupation and be given a new boss, a younger stud nipping at your heels would you be on track 100%?
MS would have taken over, times were changing and Senna was rocked. I see it as a situation similar to MJ at Washington and Duncan in San Antonio. MJ was so flashy and just flew in the 90s but given the new environment, years of beign sidetracked, things weren't the same. Duncan, so boring, so methodical, having a team built around his style, just systematically fixed everything to glory. Ross Brawn, Todt, Byrne, Bridgestone around MS? A veteran who had some fights with engine supply, teammates, and who was facing a different league of racers be able to fight for nearly a decade the way he came in? Would a team really build around a guy with that much baggage? No way. Were the building around MS? Definitely. These trends are seen in sports, business, politics, everything.
Keep in mind Senna was so passionate he cried after an incident in Monaco and didn't appear for hours. You think he was normal, cool hand, by the numbers individual? No way. That's what made him great, total passion. Senna's mind was racing in the young season of 94 with too many thoughts and it cost him. Nothing wrong with it, he admitted to Galisteau and Hilton he wanted the end to come fast and take him. Senna is the James Dean of F1. Its no point to argue what ifs. It was begining to switch to a Schumacher era anyway, at least in the team building sense. Senna was all feeling and heart mixed in with pressures from self and others till the very end. It was good never to see him fade, I think and it is stated he wanted it that way. I don't think Senna made a mistake in 94, I think he was being himself. That self was just a whirlwind of heart, dipped in motor oil, ready to unwind at any moment.

RocketBoy

 

Rocketboy, I agree with a lot you said. Not sure about the part of the end. What Senna said was, that if he had an accident, he wanted it to be fast and total and not end up as a vegetable. I don't think he had a death wish.

IMHO Senna cracked under MS' pressure in 94. Kinda like MS cracked a few years later under Hakkinen's pressure (remember Suzuka when he stalled at the start?). Luckily for MS or unluckily for the fans, there hasn't been a Hakkinen/Mc Laren like combination since and MS gets away with one title after the other.

I believe that MS is the best there is, but I also believe he cracks under pressure as we have seen before. If there were more pressure applied to him, he wouldn't be just sailing away with the points lead.

 

Like l said your a Stat Freak, you think Schumacher was a less of a driver than D. Hill, J. Villeneuve and M.Hakkinen during the 96-2000 Season, because he didn't win the championship? MS was still the best during those seasons, as Senna was from 92-94. As far as Senna crying to his girlfriend at Imola it was because he was affected by the death of Ratzenberger and RB's crash the day before. I am not downplaying Schumachers excellence, I am stating that he was in a fortunate situation. Since you speak about Stats so much, you think Stirling Moss who won no championships was a worse driver than Jacques Villenueve?

 

Hmmmm... I wonder what Schumacher was doing between 1996 and 2000. I don't know... hmmm. let me try to rememeber... Oh yes I forgot... He was reviving along with Jean T., Ross B., and Luca B. the Scuderia Ferrari team. A ferrari team that had not won a single championship for so many years.

Oh and what did Senna do when he got a bad car... he lost his cool. He did not face up to the challenge and instead he became emotionally unstable and was completey in the wrong frame of mind to be driving a F1 car. You see Senna was an emotional wreck... he let the death of Ratzenberger and the accident of RB affect his emotional state and his ability to think clearly. All F1 drivers know the risk when they step into a f1 car. They accept that risk. That is why an F1 driver is paid so much to drive the car, if they are capable of doing the job in the first place. You cannot let emotion hinder your own mind set and driving abilities in a F1 scenario.

The discusiion is not between Moss and JV. This discussion is not between Hill and MS. This is between MS and Senna. Senna can win the popularity contest even 5 years from now. But guess what...even after 5 years Schumachers record of 6 world champioships will still stand.

 

No your right it isn't about Moss or Hill. I was trying to emphasize that the best driver doesn't necessarily win the championship every year. If there is a good driver in a superior car as in 96-2000, the best driver didn't win. I guess you have been only watching F1 for the last 5 or 6 years based on your comments about wins and championships. But that is ok, you can always buy the FIA videos and watch the races in the past and maybe learn a little something.

 

Been watching F1 consistently since 1985. When Alain Prost (overall champion) drove a McLaren Porsche and Senna drove a Lotus Renault. No need to buying the FIA tapes. I own most of them.

 

It's not "the" or for that matter an actual X-ray. It's a drawing of some sorts.

 

Which illustrate where Senna's areas of injury were.

I agree. What we need in F1 right now are some serious rivalries between Michael Schumacher/Ferrari and a driver or two from other teams. That's what made F1 so exciting in the late 80's and early 90's; rivalries and close battles every race between the top few drivers.

 

Thank you Pete for this Post. And Imperial I apologize about coming unglued a bit ago.

 

Good read, somethings I had forgotten about and pic I've never seen. While its been 10 years since his death, the fact that so many remember his passion and skill as a driver and mention him w/the greats of all time says what he was. This is a debate that will continue after Schmi hangs it up and the new kid on the block makes his own way.

 

I had read somewhere that in the telemitry readings from his car you can actually see where Senna tries to correct the car as it hits the bumps and sends the car off line.


Still a tragic death

 

Glad to see you guys "hug". Being passionate for your driver is great, but don't let that escalate into a personal battle.

My nephew is a HUGE Senna fan and he can't stand MS while I'm rooting for Ferrari (not necessarily MS, but he happens to drive these cars...). So these discussions aren't new to me.