Jimbo said:
Your view
Prost's view was very different
If both cars were flat out, how could Senna have hit Prost hard enough to snap off his rear wing?
Perhaps you could also explain why Senna admitted a year later that he deliberately took out Prost as "payback?"
It was like that when I saw my first live Grand Prix in 1992
Perhaps all the teams fitted batteries and starter motors in 1998, and then changed back again in 1999?
The stench that is the British motorsport press obviously followed him from Benetton to Ferrari
According to the rules and subsequent review by the FIA, yes
Although he should have been
No driver in the history of motorsport is more responsible for the degradation of driving standards than Ayrton Senna
If it's man-made, it can break. Ask Nigel Mansell
It's also not uncommon for a broken down car to get stuck in gear, as the hydraulic system on a modern F1 car shuts down as soon as the engine goes
Opinions are like arseholes...
Senna was 34 when he died. At best, he probably only had one or two more seasons in him
Schumacher is 37, and has been told by all and sundry that he is too old and should quit. At 34, he wrapped up his sixth title, double Senna's tally
Senna's car was the class of the field in 1988, 89, 90, and was pretty close in 87, 91 and 94. Schumacher has only really had a distinct car advantage in 1994 and 2002-2004
As for team orders, perhaps you could ask Martin Brundle, Gerhard Berger or Michael Andretti what Senna's real opinion was?
1. Of course Prost's view would be very different. He's not going to say "It was my fault I was naive enough to give Senna room." is he? Senna's words were "I contributed to it (the accident) but I wasn't responsible." This became (largely) distorted to "I took Prost out on purpose." Either way, it's still a LOT more believable than "I didn't see him." Mark 1, 2 or 3...
2. I am aware that teams had been using laptops since they became available n the 80's. But in 1998, this was happening out on the grid, just before the start of the race, and the manner in which it was being carried out by Ferrari was quite suspicious, especially seeing as pictures had surfaced from the wet British Grand Prix in which Schumacher appeared to be having no problems whatsoever with wheelspin on a slippery track.
3. Nice scapegoat, the British press. You believe their demonising of Senna during the Prost/ Mansell years yet all that stuff about Schumacher cheating was made up by them because they're still bitter about the war? Is that it?
4. Like Schumacher should have been disqualified for his blatant take-out of Damon Hill at Adelaide in 1994? I will admit that Suzuka 1990 was the lowest point in Senna's career (guilty or not), but that was the only time that springs to mind. Schumacher's career reads like a kaleidoscope of cheating, dangerous driving and poor sportsmanship- yet you want to accuse Senna of degrading the whole sport of Formula 1 over one incident?
5. Schumacher was travelling just fine, then he made a mistake coming out of the corner. There was no tracable damage on the car and he should have been able to keep going, yet just like that he stopped, when his pole position time was looking like it may be under threat. Knowing how Schumacher has dealt with pressure in the past when he hasn't had team-mates or illegal cars to help him out, myself (and many others) couldn't help but be suspicious.
6. True. But the majority don't see Schumacher as the greatest ever. The same reason that alot of people would never say the Bulldogs are the greatest club in the NRL- their past is too littered with controversy and allegations of foul play or obvious rorting. In many ways, Schumacher is the Canterbury Bulldogs of Formula 1. Has great records to show, but history will be forever tainted.
7. It's my belief that, had he lived, Senna would have retired in 1997 or '98. And I think he would have finished his career with Ferrari (who'd wanted him for years) or gone back to McLaren. The McLaren was only the class of the field in 1988-89. In 1990 the Ferrari was a more reliable, better car (had a semi-automatic while the McLaren didn't). In 1987, I'd rank the Lotus third behind the Williams and the Ferraris. In 1991 I agree, the McLaren was probably just behind the Williams but had better reliability. In 1994 (at the start anyway) the Williams was a difficult car, still being developed. It's a full credit to Senna that he managed to get it on pole for all the races he started in '94. Schumacher has had a distinct car advantage way more than what you stated. Keke Rosberg made the statement that Schumacher critiscises his car so that people think it's his driving that wins the races. I agree that the Williams in 1996 and the McLaren's of 1998-99 were better cars probably, but the Ferrari has had fantastic reliability- way better reliability than most of the cars Senna drove. Also of note- in 1993 the Benetton Schumacher was driving had superior Ford engines to the McLaren Senna was in, yet Senna won 5 races that year and came second only to Alain Prost in a technologically superior Williams. Same as at the start of '94- the Benetton was a better car than the Williams, yet Senna got it on pole all three times.
8. You mean, did Senna perceive himself as the number 1 driver? Of course he did! Also on the note of Senna's relationship with Prost during their time at McLaren, you would do well to read Nigel Mansell's autobiography and find out the reasons why Mansell thought of quitting F1 at the end of 1990. Senna wasn't the only one who had problems with Prost.
