oh my god

[eddie]

The dirty air theory isn't new, guys like Senna, Prost, Piquet, Mansell, ect had to deal with it as well, more so back then as the cars didn't handle as well as they do now.
.

Less so in fact.

The bulk of the careers of your famous three were spent in turbo powered cars on slick rubber.
Much more mechanical grip.

Dirty air has'nt been as big an issue since skirts were banned.

 

[Kiwi]

Less so in fact.

The bulk of the careers of your famous three were spent in turbo powered cars on slick rubber.
Much more mechanical grip.

Dirty air has'nt been as big an issue since skirts were banned.

If you put the "famous three" in todays cars, do you think they'd have a problem over taking? I don't think they would. Back then there was a different mind set, they raced for position on the track and not in the pits.

 

[eddie]

If you put the "famous three" in todays cars, do you think they'd have a problem over taking?

I think they would find it a hell of a lot different.
There is no doubt that currant technology and regulations are greatly reducing the on-track action.
Mansell would have found a lot of his famous moves impossible with the grooved tyres and aero package of todays cars.
Prost would have been the most likely to excell.He always loved overtaking in the pits, and his tactical abilility to control a race is well known.

To reverse your question, how about putting blokes like Schumacher, Alonso and Raikkonen in 1989 McClarens.
They'd go hard.

 

[Kiwi]

I think they would find it a hell of a lot different.
There is no doubt that currant technology and regulations are greatly reducing the on-track action.
Mansell would have found a lot of his famous moves impossible with the grooved tyres and aero package of todays cars.
Prost would have been the most likely to excell.He always loved overtaking in the pits, and his tactical abilility to control a race is well known.

To reverse your question, how about putting blokes like Schumacher, Alonso and Raikkonen in 1989 McClarens.
They'd go hard.

They would go well, but as quick as Senna and Prost? I don't think so.

Mansell was nothing great really. He only won a title because he had a car that was twice as good as the next best car in the field and his team mate wasn't much chop.

 

[Knightmare]

I would agree with you there, Kiwi. Although IMO Mansell should have been World Champion in 1986 and '87. If you put Senna in a modern F1 car he would still excell, and we would all see how overrated M.Schumacher is. Senna would be the best no matter what decade he raced in.

 

[bender]

I would agree with you there, Kiwi. Although IMO Mansell should have been World Champion in 1986 and '87. If you put Senna in a modern F1 car he would still excell, and we would all see how overrated M.Schumacher is. Senna would be the best no matter what decade he raced in.

Sorry knightmare, but Senna was very overated. The McLaren he raced was so much better than the field it wasnt funny, far more dominant than any machinery Schumacher raced. Not only that, but Senna was actually outscored by his teammate Alain Prost during the time that they were at McLaren together, and this was with the allegations of Senna receiving preferential treatment from McLaren. Senna was very good but nowhere near as good as most people seem to think.

Schumacher has proved in the past, that he can run fast in anything. This year has been ordinary for him, but it is probably due to lack of desire more than anything. Do not be surprised if he gets an awakening and bounces back to dominate next year.

 

[Knightmare]

Are you kidding? With the exception of 1988, 1989 and possibly '90, Senna didn't have the best car in the field. In 1988 and '89, Senna out-raced Prost, and won the 1988 World Championship in his first season for McLaren. He should have won the title again in 1989, had it not been for Jean Marie Balestre and the politics which were skewed in favour of Alain Prost. Current FIA boss Max Mosely has stated that the unjust treatment of Senna that year was what inspired him to run for FIA president.
Also keep in mind that when Senna was racing, for a number of years there were more than 30 cars in the field. There was a stage where there was pre-qualifying, to determine which cars were even demmed good enough to have a shot at qualifying. Senna, for most of his career, was pitted against the likes of Lauda and Rosberg (early on), Prost, Mansell, Piquet and Schumacher (later on) and out-raced them.
From 2000-2004 the Ferrari was a clearly superior car in a shrunken field of barely 20 cars. Also, for many years Schumacher had a team-mate (Eddie Irvine) who literally agreed to run second to Schumacher- a luxury Senna never had. Because of the cars they raced in, the quality of the opposition and the size of the opposition, it's hard to put Schumacher anywhere near Senna.

 

[bender]

Are you kidding? With the exception of 1988, 1989 and possibly '90, Senna didn't have the best car in the field. In 1988 and '89, Senna out-raced Prost, and won the 1988 World Championship in his first season for McLaren. He should have won the title again in 1989, had it not been for Jean Marie Balestre and the politics which were skewed in favour of Alain Prost. Current FIA boss Max Mosely has stated that the unjust treatment of Senna that year was what inspired him to run for FIA president.
Also keep in mind that when Senna was racing, for a number of years there were more than 30 cars in the field. There was a stage where there was pre-qualifying, to determine which cars were even demmed good enough to have a shot at qualifying. Senna, for most of his career, was pitted against the likes of Lauda and Rosberg (early on), Prost, Mansell, Piquet and Schumacher (later on) and out-raced them.
From 2000-2004 the Ferrari was a clearly superior car in a shrunken field of barely 20 cars. Also, for many years Schumacher had a team-mate (Eddie Irvine) who literally agreed to run second to Schumacher- a luxury Senna never had. Because of the cars they raced in, the quality of the opposition and the size of the opposition, it's hard to put Schumacher anywhere near Senna.

If memory serves me correct (and i am pretty sure it does) Senna and Prost raced together for 2 years. During that time, Senna Won a world title and Prost won a world title, although Prost scored more points than Senna during this time. In 90% of the GPs the McLarens were easily the 1-2 cars. There may have been more cars in Sennas day, there were at the most 3 teams with a realistic chance of winning and 2 of those teams were always well off the pace of the McLarens. The Mclarens were simply an awesome team. Niki Lauda was great in them, Prost was great in them, Senna was great in them and Gearhardt Berger was reasonably good in them. F1 didnt become competive again until the McLaren's pulled out.

Look at Schumacher, he dominated in the Benneton, winning a world Championship with two different motors (interestingly, Benneton barely hasnt won a race since he left). He then went to a ferrari team that hadnt won anything for so many years it wasnt funny, and by no co incidence, he built them into a dynasty. In fact, even in the early years when his car was not the best in the field at times, he was often still able to compensate and make a title chase. This year he has been a little off and he may not recover (old age and loss of desire will do that) but, you cannot doubt his legacy. He is one of the Greatest and, imo, the greatest ever.

 

[Knightmare]

You talk about the other teams being "well off the pace of the McLarens". The only year that was really the case was in 1988. In 1989 the playing field levelled out a bit. Also, remember that in 1990 Prost went to Ferrari who had a decent line-up with him and Mansell and probably a superior car to the McLaren, as the Ferrari was reliable and had the advantage of semi-automatic transmission. However, Senna still managed to win the title that year, and the following year, when the Williams was the car to be in. It had probably a better engine and they had Adrian Newey as the chief aerodynamicist then. Also, who could forget 1993, when Prost came back with the Williams, which had top of the line Renault engines, traction control, active suspension etc- it was one of the most technologically advanced cars ever seen. However, Senna still managed to make Prost look ordinary on more than one occasion in a McLaren that was using second-string Ford engines. And who could forget the Donington Grand Prix that year, when Senna went from 5th to 1st on the first lap and stayed there, lapping the entire field on his way to one of the greatest victories ever seen.

There is a reason Bennetton didn't win races when Schumacher left- he took his race director Ross Brawn (a master tactician) with him to Ferrari. Also, this is the reason the allegations of cheating stopped at Bennetton and started at Ferrari- Schumacher. He has this "win whatever the cost" mentality, even if it means running illegal cars, team orders (when they were outlawed) or, at it's basest form, running his championship rival off the track (Hill 1994, Villeneuve 1997). He's the Bulldogs of Formula 1 pretty much. It is for these reasons and the ones I mentioned in my previous post that for most people, Schumacher can never be mentioned as the greatest, or at the very least above names like Senna, Fangio, Clark and Prost.

BTW Ferrari hadn't been no-hopers for ages when Schumacher arrived there. They had a good car in the late '80s but the McLaren's were better, however the team were good enough to vouch for the 1990 title with Prost. Their problems after that were managerial- again that changed when Schumacher brought his crew with him.

 

[Kiwi]

If memory serves me correct (and i am pretty sure it does) Senna and Prost raced together for 2 years. During that time, Senna Won a world title and Prost won a world title, although Prost scored more points than Senna during this time. In 90% of the GPs the McLarens were easily the 1-2 cars. There may have been more cars in Sennas day, there were at the most 3 teams with a realistic chance of winning and 2 of those teams were always well off the pace of the McLarens. The Mclarens were simply an awesome team. Niki Lauda was great in them, Prost was great in them, Senna was great in them and Gearhardt Berger was reasonably good in them. F1 didnt become competive again until the McLaren's pulled out.

Look at Schumacher, he dominated in the Benneton, winning a world Championship with two different motors (interestingly, Benneton barely hasnt won a race since he left). He then went to a ferrari team that hadnt won anything for so many years it wasnt funny, and by no co incidence, he built them into a dynasty. In fact, even in the early years when his car was not the best in the field at times, he was often still able to compensate and make a title chase. This year he has been a little off and he may not recover (old age and loss of desire will do that) but, you cannot doubt his legacy. He is one of the Greatest and, imo, the greatest ever.

I actually read an interview with Schumacher where he praised Alesi and Berger for the way they drove the beneton's after he left, saying it was a car designed specifically for his driving style ect.

You try to make it sould like the McLarens were so far ahead of everyone else yet Schumacher won in a even field. How good were the Ferrari's for most of Schumachers titles? The cars were untouchable, even Baricheillo dominated in the car.

You want to question other drivers credentials based on how good the cars were they drove, Schumacher has had big advantages at Beneton and Ferrari that other drivers mentioned haven't. A car designed specifically for him and a team mate to run blocker and surrender victories all the time.

If Senna hadn't died in early 94 he would have won the title that year and probably the following year.

 

[Knightmare]

Honestly Kiwi, I don't know if Senna would have been World Champion in '94 had he lived. The Williams still needed a lot of development, Senna was still adjusting to the car (but even then he managed a clean sweep of poles). By the time Senna had the car nailed down, it may have been too late to catch Schumacher- and even then, maybe Schumacher would have taken him out at Adelaide instead of Hill. Either way, I'm convinced Senna would have won the crown in 1995 though.

 

[Agent Mulder]

There is a reason Bennetton didn't win races when Schumacher left- he took his race director Ross Brawn (a master tactician) with him to Ferrari. Also, this is the reason the allegations of cheating stopped at Bennetton and started at Ferrari- Schumacher. He has this "win whatever the cost" mentality, even if it means running illegal cars, team orders (when they were outlawed) or, at it's basest form, running his championship rival off the track (Hill 1994, Villeneuve 1997). He's the Bulldogs of Formula 1 pretty much. It is for these reasons and the ones I mentioned in my previous post that for most people, Schumacher can never be mentioned as the greatest, or at the very least above names like Senna, Fangio, Clark and Prost.

BTW Ferrari hadn't been no-hopers for ages when Schumacher arrived there. They had a good car in the late '80s but the McLaren's were better, however the team were good enough to vouch for the 1990 title with Prost. Their problems after that were managerial- again that changed when Schumacher brought his crew with him.

YES! Totally agree, I was a huge Gerhard Berger fan when he drove and was very disapointed when the Car underperformed in 1996, Berger had the German GP won only for the Engine to blow up just 3 laps out, Alesi should of won the Monaco GP as well, It was a real bad season for Benetton.

 

[Knightmare]

Irrespective of what I (and countless others) think of him, Schumacher was the best driver Bennetton ever had.