Printable View
Because those are the seasons they had equal cars. Yes, how dare I use that as support for my case. Biased man I am, trying to use the time they were in equal cars as a support for my argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
Sure, we can look at their whole careers. In that case, I will say Prost was better in 84-86, and Senna was better every year after that.
What was wrong with my arguments, come on, go and destroy them if you can :DQuote:
Originally Posted by ioan
Can't destroy things that are inexistent!Quote:
Originally Posted by Garry Walker
All you do is provoke forum members without substantiating your claims!
So if someone makes a mistake and dies following that mistake, it isn't their fault?Quote:
Originally Posted by Garry Walker
Thanks for proving that you have no point other than trolling around here and satisfying your ego.
Case closed from my perspective.
Provoke? I attack people who claim things that are stupid. You chose to post stupidity, ergo, I attacked.Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
As for me having no arguments, here something for you -
Balestre moved the grid position around in 1990, and DSQ senna without a sensible reason in 1989. Those are dirty tricks
Senna had more reliability problems in 1989, than Prost by a long way.
Senna had a clear edge pacewise over Prost in both of the seasons, more so in 1989 than in 1988. Anyone who has watched the qualifying sessiond and races will agree.
Come on, argue with those, show me I am wrong. So far you have done your usual and posted no worthwhile response.
And if a technical component fails because of a reason that is impossible to determine due to excessive damage, no one can be found guilty, yes?Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
In any case, Fault and Guilt are not synonyms.
I love it when you toss around your "senna made a mistake", but I have asked for proof and so far you havent been able to give any. I have at least studies by scientists backing my theories, where is your proof? Come on, give it, or is your sig bull****?
You have been trolling on this forum for ages, with you mindless anti-hamilton yada, offering little proof, yet stating big words.Quote:
Thanks for proving that you have no point other than trolling around here and satisfying your ego.
Case closed from my perspective.
Case closed? You have been caught without pants on again, and are now trying to run away. Come on, offer proof for what you said.
Alright you two, enough already.
Gary, you have your opinion.
Ioan you have yours.
You've both said your piece.
End. Please? Before the FIA get involved.... ;)
Thanks.
From Wikipedia:
"Ayrton described in detail an odd feeling that he got during his qualifying laps. His experience when qualifying for the 1988 Monaco GP for example he described as being in a tunnel or dreamlike state:
“ ...the last qualifying session. I was already on pole, then by half a second and then one second and I just kept going. Suddenly I was nearly two seconds faster than anybody else, including my team mate with the same car. And suddenly I realised that I was no longer driving the car consciously. I was driving it by a kind of instinct, only I was in a different dimension. It was like I was in a tunnel. Not only the tunnel under the hotel but the whole circuit was a tunnel. I was just going and going, more and more and more and more. I was way over the limit but still able to find even more.
Then suddenly something just kicked me. I kind of woke up and realised that I was in a different atmosphere than you normally are. My immediate reaction was to back off, slow down. I drove slowly back to the pits and I didn't want to go out any more that day. It frightened me because I was well beyond my conscious understanding. It happens rarely but I keep these experiences very much alive inside me because it is something that is important for self-preservation.
”
In that session, lap after lap he broke his own pole position time."
And how long were the qualifying stints at that moment?Quote:
Originally Posted by rabf1
It seems like he was doing plenty of qualifying laps one after the other without having to stop for fresh rubber and fuel.
Was he in that "tunnel" state also when he was in the pits?
Just a few questions that came while I was reading the above post.
he is describing it as it was some kind of superior feeling between him, the car and the circuit. I think it was all about concentration, but no way as supra natural as he was describing it. I reckon he would have been a good SF novelist!
Between Prost, Hill, and Senna they won all bar one race for 1993. When Prost quit, Senna took over that seat; given that Senna didn't finish any races in 1994 (though was leading in San Marino) and that Hill lost the championship by a point, it's more than reasonable to suggest that had Senna come to terms with the car, then he would have given both Schumacher and Hill a lesson in whoop-arse. At Aida, it was Hakkinen who ran into the back of Senna which put him out, so that wasn't his fault.Quote:
Originally Posted by THE_LIBERATOR
Senna probably would have won 1994. I agree with the assertation that Benetton would not have been given Renault engines, and therefore he'd have taken 1995, 1996 and 1997 because I don't think that Hill or Villeneuve were better than him.
Given Hakkinen's and Schumacher's results for 1998, I'm inclined to think that Renault may have never bothered to buy out Benetton but strengthened their ties with Williams, and so I'd reckon that Senna may have won an extra championship - thus giving him 8.
Schumacher not once passed Senna on track, even when Senna had in theory worse machinery. That of itself says something. Senna was better than Schumacher.
Having said all of this, I still think that they were both scoundrels and cads, and that F1 is better for being rid of them (expect in the way that Senna ended his career, that's not cool at all).