Schumacher vs Senna

[Dazz9908]

Achievementwise it has to be MS..
row speed wise it has to be AS..

overall I think Senna is a better driver, given he had to fight with tough opponents wheel to wheel for wins, and MS relatively just drove to his wins much of the time than fighting tough opponents to overcome wins/record, if he didnt die He would have set the best ever record in F1.

Well said but remember Senna Drove in atime where reliablity was poor, and Cars we're cannonballs not the wind-tunnel, electronic stablisied cars of Shumi's area,

Senna is on top remember he thought against several world champs at once, Shumi as best I can remeber,2, Hill and JV.

With this in mind, Senna IS Head and Shoulders in front.

[THE_LIBERATOR]

Well in my opinion had he not died, Senna would surely have won the championship 1994 (if Hill came that close!!). Development for the 1995 car would have been different, Benetton may even have been blocked from obtaining Renault engines. Senna would have signed for Ferrari in 1996, & retired a 5 time world champion in 1998.

This is of course speculation, but it's as worthy, & true as anyone else's speculation.

[SGWilko]

This is just speculation, as you say, thus any comparison should be made based on facts.

Saying that Senna had another 3 years of competitive racing left, based on MS's retirement age, is really pushing the speculation too far.



And MS was slowly getting the better of him, in a pretty constant manner, thus if you allow me to do some speculation, AS wouldn't have continued for another 3 years just to be upstaged by the young German, he's ego was to big for that, IMO.

That was a joke, right, the last paragraph? Michael was beaten (very nearly) by Hill in '94 remember, that was only Hill's second season in F1 (in a competetive seat), so I fail to see how Ayrton would have been WORSE than Hill that year.....

But, as you say elsewhere Ioan, it depends on your POV, eh.

[ioan]

That was a joke, right, the last paragraph? Michael was beaten (very nearly) by Hill in '94 remember, that was only Hill's second season in F1 (in a competetive seat), so I fail to see how Ayrton would have been WORSE than Hill that year.....

But, as you say elsewhere Ioan, it depends on your POV, eh.

In 94 out out of the few races that they both competed who won more MS or AS?
That's the only fact we have.

What if's are what if's and can't be verified.

[markabilly]

A car can only go so fast, no matter who is driving it. When all is said and done, the importance of a WDC is that it indicates an ability to do it for a whole season, well enough when things are going bad to score sufficient points.

Beyond that, whatever differences there are or were in terms of driver ability between top drivers, are microscopic compared to the differences between cars, esp. in the last twenty years or so, where if the car is not there, you will not see much driver talent. And that says nothing about the tires. Many seasons and drivers are judged by the car they drove, when the tires might have made even more difference.

As to Senna he was pure racer, whereas MS was more of a complete package in terms of being more car principle at Ferari than anyone else who was there, with more control over what was happening than any other driver in the last thirty years or so of history (to find a driver in a similar position one needs to look at Brabham, Bruce the real Maclaren, and Gurney with the Eagle from the 1960's and very early seventies), so when one says MS had a better car, then that is something he deserved some credit for helping to create.

So for me that makes MS something more special than Senna or anyone else of the last 20 years or so. But does that make him a faster better driver. Not really. And as said before by others, it is all just specualtion. Once adriver has demonstrated sufficient talent, then it becomes more car than driver. And all the reason why I think BMW blew it, as FA may not be the very best ever, but he is at least equal to the very best of the other three of Kimi, Massa and LH...whereas what BMW now has is still a big question mark.

Bottom line : If you had a championship worthy car and had the chance to hire MS or Senna (and could afford the price of admission) would you hire one or the other or both? Only someone with a different agenda other than maxing out the winning, would not hire one or both, unless they already had some one named Prost, Clark, Stewart, Mansell, or some other very worthy WDC already driving for them.

[Dave B]

You're comparing apples with oranges.

Firstly from a purely statistical perspective it's impossible to make comparisons because Senna's career was cut tragically short. Who knows if he would have gone on to take more championships - possibly even denying Schumacher his '94 and '95 titles? Impossible to say.

Secondly their approaches were different. Senna was more of a natural talent who seemed to defy the odds to achieve the impossible. Schumacher, certainly in his Ferrari era, was more analytical and served to bond the team in a way which set new standards; but question marks still exist about his outright speed.

It's one of those questions to which there is no satisfactory answer, and in my opinion that's exactly how it should be. Any measure of who was "better" is purely subjective.

[Dave B]

Right, on top of being very fast and successful he [Schumacher] also managed to stay alive while taking the risks. :

Is that sarcasm (in which case it's pretty poor taste) or are you genuinely suggesting that Senna was in some way responsible for causing his own death?

[wedge]

As to Senna he was pure racer, whereas MS was more of a complete package in terms of being more car principle at Ferari than anyone else who was there, with more control over what was happening than any other driver in the last thirty years or so of history (to find a driver in a similar position one needs to look at Brabham, Bruce the real Maclaren, and Gurney with the Eagle from the 1960's and very early seventies), so when one says MS had a better car, then that is something he deserved some credit for helping to create.

Not so sure if I agree with you there. Even British engineers when he raced in junior formulae were mighty impressed with Senna's feedback. When he went testing he could drive at 80% and point out where he could make up a few tenths and Senna would accurately do it come race weekend.

It's no reason Honda had a fetish for the Brazilians, Senna was accused of having better engines than Prost in 88/89. It was down to Senna's feedback that Honda developed fly-by-wire throttle technology. I believe Senna went on to write to Max Mosely to keep fly-by-wire throttles as well as banning TC in the early 90s.

Senna was more of a natural talent who seemed to defy the odds to achieve the impossible. Schumacher, certainly in his Ferrari era, was more analytical and served to bond the team in a way which set new standards; but question marks still exist about his outright speed.

In a race I've had a slight feeling that Schumi would edge out Senna (ever so slightly) if ever these guys were on the absolute limit. Senna undoubtedly drove from the heart and relied on his natural talent a lot more and that where the mistakes would come. I get the feeling Senna would destroy his tyres at the end of a stint whereas Schumi would probably have something left in reserve.

[F1boat]

In a battle, I think that MS will probably pitpass him.

[ioan]

Is that sarcasm (in which case it's pretty poor taste) or are you genuinely suggesting that Senna was in some way responsible for causing his own death?

A bit of both, but mostly the later.

From what I know no one was found guilty for his death.
Given that he didn't die in mysterious circumstances in the middle of the woods I suppose that those involved do know very well what happened, but for some reason won't say.
Maybe he was responsible for his own death and no one wants to say it in order not to destroy the myth?!