Schumacher vs Senna

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

And how long were the qualifying stints at that moment?
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!

---

What he was describing was being "in the zone" as they say, as in football, where one reaches a certain state of concentration and awareness of being where everything just happens. Aikman said that during his first superbowl, he was in a zone, where everything was happenning pefectly but he was not thinking about what to do at all, he was just doing it.

I read an interview with Jim Clark years ago (as in more than forty) where he said the real reason he raced was there were moments where he became one with the car, totally connected, where he did not think what he needed to do and then did it, instead he just knew it and it happened. That article left a lasting impression as to where I wanted my mental state to be when racing or doing certain other things.

Having been in that state a few times, it feels very unreal, sort of like being out of the body and in another world where there is only one thing going on, what you are doing at that moment, where you just do it without there being any forethought or concious decision, or even a concious effort to concentrate. Better than any drugs, indeed even better than kool aid...oh my brings back memoroies, oh, me to be young again, age 21........ :s mokin:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

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.

---

Got to love the lengths some are willing to go with suppositions that never materialized.

And before you ask me why I think you're wrong I'll give you the answer.

You say that Senna would have won the 94 title because hill managed to get within 1 point of Schumacher.
However you completely ignore that Hill got within 1 point of Schumacher because:

1. MS was blackflaged from the British GP because he overtook Hill for a moment during the warm-up lap.
2. MS was DQ-ed from the Hungarian GP (after winning it) because of too much wear of the skidblock (although it was aparently due to a spin over the kerbs).
3. Subsequently MS was banned for 2 more races!

Do the math and see for yourself how Hill was awarded more than 30 points by the FIA, and that was the only reason he got within 1 point of MS.

Considering that Senna had 0 points when he died I find it a bit far stretched to say that he would have closed the gap to MS if not for a similar help as Hill got from the sporting authorities.

Just my opinion.

All I know is that i could have won the wdc in 1993, 1994 and every year after that, no matter whether Senna lived or not, or whatever team he signed with, if I only had the right tires, right car, right engine, right engineer, right team, right track, right eye and right foot. Good thing for Schumimaker, cause otherwise no one would remember his name.....

and of course the right drink.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

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.

---

There's a (or was) a video of Prost and Schumacher passing Senna at Silverstone '93 (I think it was '93!). So yes Schumacher did pass Senna on the track.

But so what? Their careers only overlapped for less than 2.5 seasons so we never had the chance to truly evaluate them against each other.

The comparison is a purely speculative one and one that is coloured largely by opinion. I think the fact that Senna was killed in the car has enhanced his reputation as has the two seasons he spent alongside Prost at McLaren. The arguments for Senna are largely intangible ones because the statistics have Schumacher winning in a landslide.

Senna was great but I think Schumacher, Prost and Clark were greater.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

You say that Senna would have won the 94 title because hill managed to get within 1 point of Schumacher.
However you completely ignore that Hill got within 1 point of Schumacher because:

1. MS was blackflaged from the British GP because he overtook Hill for a moment during the warm-up lap.
2. MS was DQ-ed from the Hungarian GP (after winning it) because of too much wear of the skidblock (although it was aparently due to a spin over the kerbs).
3. Subsequently MS was banned for 2 more races!

Do the math and see for yourself how Hill was awarded more than 30 points by the FIA, and that was the only reason he got within 1 point of MS.

---

Correct. This is the reason that Damon Hill got within a point of Schumacher. Is this in dispute? No.
Was Senna better than Hill? Absolutely. If you'd had Senna in that same car for the season instead of Hill, Senna would have **** all over Hill, Schumacher et al.

Schumacher - Brilliant Driver, Crap Car
Hill - Moderate Driver, Brilliant Car
Senna? - Brilliant Driver, Brilliant Car. And how do we know that the car was Brilliant? Hill proved it.

Or perhaps you're supposing that Senna wasn't that great?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

And before you ask me why I think you're wrong I'll give you the answer.

You say that Senna would have won the 94 title because hill managed to get within 1 point of Schumacher.
However you completely ignore that Hill got within 1 point of Schumacher because:

1. MS was blackflaged from the British GP because he overtook Hill for a moment during the warm-up lap.
2. MS was DQ-ed from the Hungarian GP (after winning it) because of too much wear of the skidblock (although it was aparently due to a spin over the kerbs).
3. Subsequently MS was banned for 2 more races!

Do the math and see for yourself how Hill was awarded more than 30 points by the FIA, and that was the only reason he got within 1 point of MS.

Considering that Senna had 0 points when he died I find it a bit far stretched to say that he would have closed the gap to MS if not for a similar help as Hill got from the sporting authorities.

Just my opinion.

---

Points 2. and 3. are void.

They got rid of flat bottomed cars straight after Senna's death and introduced the plank to raise the ride height thereby reducing the tendency of the car bottoming out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

Correct. This is the reason that Damon Hill got within a point of Schumacher. Is this in dispute? No.
Was Senna better than Hill? Absolutely. If you'd had Senna in that same car for the season instead of Hill, Senna would have **** all over Hill, Schumacher et al.

Schumacher - Brilliant Driver, Crap Car
Hill - Moderate Driver, Brilliant Car
Senna? - Brilliant Driver, Brilliant Car. And how do we know that the car was Brilliant? Hill proved it.

Or perhaps you're supposing that Senna wasn't that great?

---

The 94 Williams wasn't all that brilliant. In fact it was horrible, even Senna said said so because it was extremely twitchy at the beginning of the season.

The B194 wasn't entirely crap because Senna was convinced it TC. It was never proven but rumour has it that it was Benetton's engine mapping via the fuel pump.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wedge

Points 2. and 3. are void.

They got rid of flat bottomed cars straight after Senna's death and introduced the plank to raise the ride height thereby reducing the tendency of the car bottoming out.

---

No they aren't. They explain why Hill got anywhere near Schumacher in the title race. Schumacher effectively competed in 4 less races than Hill.

Schumacher lost 8 points after he was disqualified in Britain for overtaking on the formation lap. He lost a further 10 points when he was disqualified from the Belgian GP for an illegal plank. This also saw him banned for the Italian and Portugese GPs. Schumacher directly lost 18 points and lost the chance to compete for 20 more. Schumacher should have won the title by about 30 points. I'm not trying to suggest that Schumacher was hard done by. I'm only pointing out that the title was artificially close. Of Hills 6 wins he was gifted 1 (Belgium) and won 2 others when Schumacher wasn't there.

How does this relate to Senna? I think means that Schumacher was much further ahead of Hill than the standings indictated and that Senna would have not had the title at a canter. He may have still won but he would have had to fight for it.

Fact is that Hill had more points than Senna when the later passed away.
Hill come within 1 point of Schumacher because he was gifted 4 races.

Senna should have been able to gather around 40 points more than Hill in normal circumstances in the remaining races to win the WDC title. I don't doubt he was better than Hill but not that good.

There was ofcourse a chance for Senna to win the 94 title but we have to objectively agree that his chances were inferior to those of Schumacher

I put the facts and the numbers on the table to support my POV.

I also fail to see why some claim that Benetton wouldn't have got Renault engines for the 95 season if Senna was still alive. It's not like if he was owning the Renault factory.