Results 21 to 30 of 72
-
2nd July 2008, 23:59 #21
- Join Date
- Mar 2001
- Location
- Sep 1666
- Posts
- 10,462
- Like
- 15
- Liked 201 Times in 155 Posts
This whole thread is the case of the lesser of two evils for me. In terms of driving skill and ability they were both masters of their craft, but in terms of character they're both utter filth.
Because I think that Senna was a better driver than Hill, and because the Williams was improving throughout '94, I think that Senna would have had a fairly decent tilt at '94, '95, '96 and '97 by which time his star would have slowly fallen.
That in-my-well-paid-opnion would have left Senna with 7 titles and Schumacher with 5.
Had they been in equal machinery, I'd reckon Senna would have won 8 times in 13.The Old Republic was a stupidly run organisation which deserved to be taken over. All Hail Palpatine!
-
3rd July 2008, 01:11 #22
- Join Date
- Mar 2002
- Posts
- 6,410
- Like
- 0
- Liked 32 Times in 32 Posts
The world according to Taki Inoue: https://mobile.twitter.com/takiinoue/st ... 7249326080
-
3rd July 2008, 02:02 #23
- Join Date
- Sep 2007
- Posts
- 300
- Like
- 0
- Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by gravity
As for the original question. I really didn't like the young Senna. His approach was always 'you give way or we're both out'. It wasn't just the two Suzuka incidents. All the top F1 drivers would complain about him in the Autosport race reports. The last 1 to 1 1/2 years of his life, I felt he had settled down and I began to like him.
Between the two, I would go with Schumacher, but I think the question is too limited, because the greatest of all time was Fangio.
-
3rd July 2008, 02:11 #24
- Join Date
- Sep 2007
- Posts
- 300
- Like
- 0
- Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by DezinerPaul
-
3rd July 2008, 02:43 #25
- Join Date
- Jun 2007
- Posts
- 203
- Like
- 0
- Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Senna, on two specific occasions - 89 and 90, deliberately 'took out' his opponent (Prost).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8-Qh...eature=related
The '89 incident was, in my view Prost taking out Senna. The overhead view is very telling. Look at Prost's trajectory - If Senna wasn't there he would have turned in way too early. 1990 is a different matter of course but I feel the 89 coming together is wrongly blamed on Ayrton.
-
3rd July 2008, 03:09 #26
- Join Date
- Mar 2001
- Location
- Sep 1666
- Posts
- 10,462
- Like
- 15
- Liked 201 Times in 155 Posts
Schumacher also on two specific occasions - 94 and 97 deliberately 'took out' his opponent (Hill and Villeneuve).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQC_LQI1Aiw
Hill tried around the outside to go around Schmacher's stricken car and then up the inside. Schumacher deliberately turned in on Hill because, there is no possible other reason why he would have even turned back onto the racing line at such a corner.
Schumacher vs Senna is the question of which is better - a **** or a ****?The Old Republic was a stupidly run organisation which deserved to be taken over. All Hail Palpatine!
-
3rd July 2008, 03:36 #27
- Join Date
- Sep 2007
- Posts
- 300
- Like
- 0
- Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by shazbot
-
3rd July 2008, 04:29 #28
- Join Date
- Jun 2008
- Posts
- 292
- Like
- 0
- Liked 8 Times in 8 Posts
Originally Posted by Mr Jan Yeo
Not so as I do not agree with your two choices of who is the best. If on the other hand you are asking who is the better of the two, the answer is simple Prost.
Senna was beaten by Prost, over their careers. That does not mean that Senna never beat Prost, what it means that Prost had the much better of the two careers. The issue of Sennas passing does not come into it, as 1: he did not race so one cannot sat what he would have done, The chances of him beating Michael were at best slim. The ONLY reason anybody got close to Michael was the FIA penalties,the "Barge Board incident" and the pace car. Many believe that the FIA wanted Williams and Damon to take the title, because of Senna. Senna was not in the hunt in 94 and had crashed on all three of his starts, even after having the pole on each occaisons. When he died he was already 7 points behind Hill and Damon, proved how fast he was over the rest of the year. He was showing the signs of losing his great skills, remember he was always great for one lap, consistencey was his problem. With Senna, the myth is much larger than the man. How can he even be considered in the top three, when he fought a losing battle against Prost, who must be on the top three. There can be only one top three and you can put them in you own order of preferance, mine is Michael, Fangio, Prosts because at days end, it is all about the title.Webber is the most overrated driver in F1, it is time for him to move over for a better prospect
-
3rd July 2008, 06:46 #29
- Join Date
- Sep 2007
- Posts
- 300
- Like
- 0
- Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by DezinerPaul
Prost's winning percentage was .255
Senna's was a squinch lower at .253
The Schu's is .364
Fangio's, in an era where if you put a wheel wrong, you could end up dead, was .451
Odd how much more people remember of Senna than Prost, when they were both pretty equal in winning races.
-
3rd July 2008, 07:27 #30
- Join Date
- Nov 2005
- Posts
- 6,476
- Like
- 21
- Liked 20 Times in 20 Posts
Originally Posted by Miatanut
If if if!
The world's favourite airline (according to their ads)
What's the first thing to come to...