planetf1.com

Exediron wrote:

tootsie323 wrote:

dpastern wrote:... Vettel is not particularly good in the wet...

I'll play devil's advocate here and point out that his first wins, for both Torro Rosso and for Red Bull, were in wet conditions. I actually think that he is a pretty good wet weather driver.

He does seem to have lost that ability since coming to Ferrari, for some reason. I can't remember Vettel really looking good in the wet since he was at Red Bull.

Tires, Tires, Tires.

F1 MERCENARY wrote:

Exediron wrote:

tootsie323 wrote:

dpastern wrote:... Vettel is not particularly good in the wet...

I'll play devil's advocate here and point out that his first wins, for both Torro Rosso and for Red Bull, were in wet conditions. I actually think that he is a pretty good wet weather driver.

He does seem to have lost that ability since coming to Ferrari, for some reason. I can't remember Vettel really looking good in the wet since he was at Red Bull.

Tires, Tires, Tires.

Lack of adaptability, then, since other drivers who were good in the wet before managed not to lose that ability on the Pirellis.

Jezza13 wrote:

Fiki wrote:Fascinating, thinking about how the season might have gone without the loss of Senna. I believe the importance of the fuel cheating, brought to light (what's in a word?) by the pitlane fire at Hockenheim, would not have been downplayed by the FIA/F1. And therefore, the consequences could and should have been far more severe.

I was also wondering about the cheating allegations in 94 had Senna lived but more specifically the TC issue considering what he heard whilst sitting near the fence in Aida after being taken out & in light of Jos Verstappens comments in recent years regarding that issue.

Probably not much. According to Toet, it was a from of TC, but the way achieved was not illegal. He says that the other teams copied it, so for all we know, Williams may have benefited from the same thing. Maybe Senna would have prompted the FIA to clarify the system that Benetton have, making it illegal, or he could have reaped the same benefits when/if they copied it. I do not want to venture too much into "what if" territory, the reality is that we do not know.

dpastern wrote:

Mort Canard wrote:Is there ANYONE here who is willing to step up and claim that it diminished Michael Schumacher's accomplishments when he was beaten three years running by a young Nico Rosberg???


Source: http://seethrumag.com/wp-content/upload ... 308201.jpg

I'll take that bait. Schumacher is overrated. He had the best car for many years, and after Hakkinen disappeared, he had no real driver competition for the WDC. Coupled to weak team mates, team favouritism and cheating (from both Schumacher and his team(s).

If Williams hadn't screwed up the '94 Williams, resulting in Senna's untimely death, there's no way that Schumacher would have won 7 WDCs. Not even close.

As to Vettel, I'll be blunt - I also think he's overrated. He's not in the same league as Hamilton or Alonso. Not even close. Vettel is not particularly good in the wet, and is prone to failing under stress and high pressure situations.

I call BullDookie on this 1,000%.

NEWS FLASH! Senna was in the best car when he won ALL his titles, as was Prost. So that cancels that theory in your obviously bias assessment.
In 1994 The Williams was pretty damn good, if not a hair better than the Benetton, or are we to believe that was only during qualifying?

The FACT "IS" that the young phenom was simply extreme pressure at all times, and ANYONE would have had to deal with it, INCLUDING Senna.

I realize Senna was a supreme talent, but you guys seem to buy into the James dean effect far too much just because he died prematurely.
James dean was not a superb actor and he only starred in 3 films and they did just ok. Once he died hoever, this mythical status emerged and the guy inexplicably became enshrined in such an exaggerated way, that people believe he had chops the likes of a Marlon Brando, and that seriously isn't the case at all.

And while Senna is among the greatest ever, Michael showed he was the greatest ever, on track and off, via results yielded over a historic career.

When Michael joined Benetton he had a decent car but not the best, yet he was always faster than any teammate by a significant margin, and eventually when the car was capable of winning, HE was the one taking the vast majority of them. Then he moved to a struggling Ferrari and initially the car was decent at best, yet once again, he was outclassing his teammates EASILY, and after his arrival the team began to improve. His ability to communicate what cars needed and where they were lacking to his engineers was uncanny. At the same time, once a car was competitive at the front, he was so good that it didn't much matter what changes were made because he was able to put in near identical times. His teammates on the other hand couldn't replicate his performance which baffled everyone.

Senna's complaining and accusations of cheating, merely because the sound coming from Michael's Benetton was different than his teammate AS WELL AS EVERYONE ELSE was nothing more than a hurt ego. The reality IS that Michael was using Left foot braking which is something that was unheard of at the time, and he kept 10-15% throttle input at all times while under braking to maintain revs in the power train so that upon releasing the brake, the car would not have to build revs in order to power out of corners like everyone else, and holding the revs up provided a bit of a boost to zip through and out of corners.

Exediron wrote:

F1 MERCENARY wrote:

Exediron wrote:

tootsie323 wrote:

dpastern wrote:... Vettel is not particularly good in the wet...

I'll play devil's advocate here and point out that his first wins, for both Torro Rosso and for Red Bull, were in wet conditions. I actually think that he is a pretty good wet weather driver.

He does seem to have lost that ability since coming to Ferrari, for some reason. I can't remember Vettel really looking good in the wet since he was at Red Bull.

Tires, Tires, Tires.

Lack of adaptability, then, since other drivers who were good in the wet before managed not to lose that ability on the Pirellis.

Not neccessarily. Car dynamics play a bigger role in how tire characteristics are affected. Even still, I suspect you don't think any of Vettel's teammates have ever been better in the wet. If that is the case, being better than Webber, Ricciardo and Raikkonen in the wet, speaks to his excellence in trying conditions.

Additionally, people look at singular incidents and proceed to blow them out of proportion with regularity and it's simply not an accurate representation of the complete picture. If you take the times Vettel has made a mistake since being with Ferrari, they would all add up to a minute percentage comparatively to his successes. These guys drive at the very edge under extreme circumstances from the first green flag of the season, and given they are on the limit, the tiniest of mistakes end up looking like astronomical ones.

At Interlagos in 2016, Verstappen was driving a magnificent race all day long, but then, he made one of these tiny mistakes, but unlike everyone else who made that tiny mistake in that very corner, he was LUCKY to not have hit the wall, especially since he was actually going faster than anyone else who'd lost it in that very corner. But since he didn't hit the wall and it didn't cost him too much time, it's only viewed as the tiny mistake it was, while everyone else who made contact with he wall is generally accused of having fudged up.

I don't think it's fair to cast such bold opinions of them so simply over so few incidents. Hamilton has made a few seemingly silly mistakes throughout his career, but his ability has never been in question. When Vettel was winning (post 2010) he was driving like a machine and when he expressed his joy via his index finger, he was unfairly dubbed Vettel and all this unwarranted and unnecessary dislike for the guy was rampant. He had every right to celebrate his achievements just like anyone else.

Exediron wrote:

F1 MERCENARY wrote:

Exediron wrote:

tootsie323 wrote:

dpastern wrote:... Vettel is not particularly good in the wet...

I'll play devil's advocate here and point out that his first wins, for both Torro Rosso and for Red Bull, were in wet conditions. I actually think that he is a pretty good wet weather driver.

He does seem to have lost that ability since coming to Ferrari, for some reason. I can't remember Vettel really looking good in the wet since he was at Red Bull.

Tires, Tires, Tires.

Lack of adaptability, then, since other drivers who were good in the wet before managed not to lose that ability on the Pirellis.

Sure that Vettel is very good in the rain, as he is very good all round but has he shown anything to put him up there with the very, very best which is what we’re really discussing? Genuine question and happy to hear examples that he really excelled beyond the headline. You can’t fault him for getting the job done for the Torro Rosso win, and fits the bill of a 4-time world champion, but at the same time the big names were out of position from bad calls in qualifying, and he was ultimately left holding off the likes of Kovalainen and is there evidence the Torro Rosso was at a disadvantage too BMW/Renault in those conditions? Bourdais qualified 4th and I’d be curious how his race pace compared after he stalled on the grid putting him a lap down. Curious to hear more details on the other examples too, but guessing those high-downforce Red Bulls would’ve given the drivers a fair amount of confidence in wet conditions.

Exediron wrote:

dpastern wrote:There are 4 wet weather drivers that stand out to me:

Senna
Clark
Hamilton
Verstappen

Nothing else comes close. Vettel is a very distant level away from these 4 guys in the wet imho.

Verstappen? Already? He's had one majorly impressive wet weather drive, and suddenly he's in a league with only Senna, Clark and Hamilton?

I think you're jumping the gun quite a lot on that one. Verstappen looks no more consistently impressive in the wet than Vettel.

In today's grid I would say he's second best to Hamilton but he's nearly 13 years younger so he will probably become the future rainmeister?

Johnson wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

pokerman wrote: Were does it mention stopwatches or am I missing something?

The dials, showing speed or time. I remembered that it was stopwatches, I was wrong and it was speed dials. Not changing much though, the idea is that he spent time on track perfecting his skills. He didn't just walk into it in the first part of his career as you suggested.

well it was speed dials that "stopped" when they hit the fastest/slowest speed in the corners, so you weren't technically wrong!

Not technically wrong? ok.

A watch measures time. Clearly not a stopwatch as it measures speed.

Schumacher did have a stopwatch on his steering wheel, but only during qualifying/practise sessions. He would sync it with the session time so he knew exactly how long in the session was left. Quite a few drivers did this, most used basic casio’s.

Like I said before he apparently used 3 stopwatches when he practicised at Fiorana.

Fiki wrote:

pokerman wrote:Schumacher very much just walked into F1, that's actually part of his legend, he had half a day testing in the Jordan at Silverstone were they told him to slow down because of the lap times he was doing they thought he was driving over his limit and was going to crash, but that wasn't the case at all.

He also conned them into believing that he knew the Spa track well with him living reasonably close to the circuit but he had in fact never driven on the track before. He qualified 7th about a second quicker than his experienced teammate and then immediately got snapped up by Benetton for the next race, all this with minimum track time.

It wasn't Schumacher who bluffed his way into the Jordan seat, that was his manager's doing. When Gary Anderson asked him about it during that weekend, Schumacher replied he had never been there. Which, to my mind, makes your point about minimum track time even more valid. The fact that he found himself in a perfectly good car doesn't diminish that; Gachot had posted fastest lap at the Hungaroring the race before.

I don't know whether it was German fans who gave Vettel his early F1 nickname of "Baby-Schumi", but it certainly was fitting. And who's to tell what Vettel could do/could have done already, were he to have had the same kind of practicing advantage Schumacher enjoyed while at Ferrari?

Fair enough but like you say it just highlights the lack of practice he had initially.

Jezza13 wrote:

Fiki wrote:Fascinating, thinking about how the season might have gone without the loss of Senna. I believe the importance of the fuel cheating, brought to light (what's in a word?) by the pitlane fire at Hockenheim, would not have been downplayed by the FIA/F1. And therefore, the consequences could and should have been far more severe.

I was also wondering about the cheating allegations in 94 had Senna lived but more specifically the TC issue considering what he heard whilst sitting near the fence in Aida after being taken out & in light of Jos Verstappens comments in recent years regarding that issue.

It's rumoured that one of the reasons Schumacher left Benetton was too distance himself from the cheating allegations.

F1 MERCENARY wrote:

dpastern wrote:

Mort Canard wrote:Is there ANYONE here who is willing to step up and claim that it diminished Michael Schumacher's accomplishments when he was beaten three years running by a young Nico Rosberg???


Source: http://seethrumag.com/wp-content/upload ... 308201.jpg

I'll take that bait. Schumacher is overrated. He had the best car for many years, and after Hakkinen disappeared, he had no real driver competition for the WDC. Coupled to weak team mates, team favouritism and cheating (from both Schumacher and his team(s).

If Williams hadn't screwed up the '94 Williams, resulting in Senna's untimely death, there's no way that Schumacher would have won 7 WDCs. Not even close.

As to Vettel, I'll be blunt - I also think he's overrated. He's not in the same league as Hamilton or Alonso. Not even close. Vettel is not particularly good in the wet, and is prone to failing under stress and high pressure situations.

I call BullDookie on this 1,000%.

NEWS FLASH! Senna was in the best car when he won ALL his titles, as was Prost. So that cancels that theory in your obviously bias assessment.
In 1994 The Williams was pretty damn good, if not a hair better than the Benetton, or are we to believe that was only during qualifying?

The FACT "IS" that the young phenom was simply extreme pressure at all times, and ANYONE would have had to deal with it, INCLUDING Senna.

I realize Senna was a supreme talent, but you guys seem to buy into the James dean effect far too much just because he died prematurely.
James dean was not a superb actor and he only starred in 3 films and they did just ok. Once he died hoever, this mythical status emerged and the guy inexplicably became enshrined in such an exaggerated way, that people believe he had chops the likes of a Marlon Brando, and that seriously isn't the case at all.

And while Senna is among the greatest ever, Michael showed he was the greatest ever, on track and off, via results yielded over a historic career.

When Michael joined Benetton he had a decent car but not the best, yet he was always faster than any teammate by a significant margin, and eventually when the car was capable of winning, HE was the one taking the vast majority of them. Then he moved to a struggling Ferrari and initially the car was decent at best, yet once again, he was outclassing his teammates EASILY, and after his arrival the team began to improve. His ability to communicate what cars needed and where they were lacking to his engineers was uncanny. At the same time, once a car was competitive at the front, he was so good that it didn't much matter what changes were made because he was able to put in near identical times. His teammates on the other hand couldn't replicate his performance which baffled everyone.

Senna's complaining and accusations of cheating, merely because the sound coming from Michael's Benetton was different than his teammate AS WELL AS EVERYONE ELSE was nothing more than a hurt ego. The reality IS that Michael was using Left foot braking which is something that was unheard of at the time, and he kept 10-15% throttle input at all times while under braking to maintain revs in the power train so that upon releasing the brake, the car would not have to build revs in order to power out of corners like everyone else, and holding the revs up provided a bit of a boost to zip through and out of corners.

You think that a car beset with handling issues was the best car in F1?

Why didn't Schumacher's superior driving technique not prevent Senna from qualifying on pole?

F1 MERCENARY wrote:

Exediron wrote:

F1 MERCENARY wrote:

Exediron wrote:

tootsie323 wrote: I'll play devil's advocate here and point out that his first wins, for both Torro Rosso and for Red Bull, were in wet conditions. I actually think that he is a pretty good wet weather driver.

He does seem to have lost that ability since coming to Ferrari, for some reason. I can't remember Vettel really looking good in the wet since he was at Red Bull.

Tires, Tires, Tires.

Lack of adaptability, then, since other drivers who were good in the wet before managed not to lose that ability on the Pirellis.

Not neccessarily. Car dynamics play a bigger role in how tire characteristics are affected. Even still, I suspect you don't think any of Vettel's teammates have ever been better in the wet. If that is the case, being better than Webber, Ricciardo and Raikkonen in the wet, speaks to his excellence in trying conditions.

Additionally, people look at singular incidents and proceed to blow them out of proportion with regularity and it's simply not an accurate representation of the complete picture. If you take the times Vettel has made a mistake since being with Ferrari, they would all add up to a minute percentage comparatively to his successes. These guys drive at the very edge under extreme circumstances from the first green flag of the season, and given they are on the limit, the tiniest of mistakes end up looking like astronomical ones.

At Interlagos in 2016, Verstappen was driving a magnificent race all day long, but then, he made one of these tiny mistakes, but unlike everyone else who made that tiny mistake in that very corner, he was LUCKY to not have hit the wall, especially since he was actually going faster than anyone else who'd lost it in that very corner. But since he didn't hit the wall and it didn't cost him too much time, it's only viewed as the tiny mistake it was, while everyone else who made contact with he wall is generally accused of having fudged up.

I don't think it's fair to cast such bold opinions of them so simply over so few incidents. Hamilton has made a few seemingly silly mistakes throughout his career, but his ability has never been in question. When Vettel was winning (post 2010) he was driving like a machine and when he expressed his joy via his index finger, he was unfairly dubbed Vettel and all this unwarranted and unnecessary dislike for the guy was rampant. He had every right to celebrate his achievements just like anyone else.

In recent years we have not seen Vettel being better than Kimi in the wet.

pokerman wrote:

Exediron wrote:

dpastern wrote:There are 4 wet weather drivers that stand out to me:

Senna
Clark
Hamilton
Verstappen

Nothing else comes close. Vettel is a very distant level away from these 4 guys in the wet imho.

Verstappen? Already? He's had one majorly impressive wet weather drive, and suddenly he's in a league with only Senna, Clark and Hamilton?

I think you're jumping the gun quite a lot on that one. Verstappen looks no more consistently impressive in the wet than Vettel.

In today's grid I would say he's second best to Hamilton but he's nearly 13 years younger so he will probably become the future rainmeister?

I would concur.

F1 MERCENARY wrote:

dpastern wrote:

Mort Canard wrote:Is there ANYONE here who is willing to step up and claim that it diminished Michael Schumacher's accomplishments when he was beaten three years running by a young Nico Rosberg???


Source: http://seethrumag.com/wp-content/upload ... 308201.jpg

I'll take that bait. Schumacher is overrated. He had the best car for many years, and after Hakkinen disappeared, he had no real driver competition for the WDC. Coupled to weak team mates, team favouritism and cheating (from both Schumacher and his team(s).

If Williams hadn't screwed up the '94 Williams, resulting in Senna's untimely death, there's no way that Schumacher would have won 7 WDCs. Not even close.

As to Vettel, I'll be blunt - I also think he's overrated. He's not in the same league as Hamilton or Alonso. Not even close. Vettel is not particularly good in the wet, and is prone to failing under stress and high pressure situations.

I call BullDookie on this 1,000%.

NEWS FLASH! Senna was in the best car when he won ALL his titles, as was Prost. So that cancels that theory in your obviously bias assessment.
In 1994 The Williams was pretty damn good, if not a hair better than the Benetton, or are we to believe that was only during qualifying?

The FACT "IS" that the young phenom was simply extreme pressure at all times, and ANYONE would have had to deal with it, INCLUDING Senna.

I realize Senna was a supreme talent, but you guys seem to buy into the James dean effect far too much just because he died prematurely.
James dean was not a superb actor and he only starred in 3 films and they did just ok. Once he died hoever, this mythical status emerged and the guy inexplicably became enshrined in such an exaggerated way, that people believe he had chops the likes of a Marlon Brando, and that seriously isn't the case at all.

And while Senna is among the greatest ever, Michael showed he was the greatest ever, on track and off, via results yielded over a historic career.

When Michael joined Benetton he had a decent car but not the best, yet he was always faster than any teammate by a significant margin, and eventually when the car was capable of winning, HE was the one taking the vast majority of them. Then he moved to a struggling Ferrari and initially the car was decent at best, yet once again, he was outclassing his teammates EASILY, and after his arrival the team began to improve. His ability to communicate what cars needed and where they were lacking to his engineers was uncanny. At the same time, once a car was competitive at the front, he was so good that it didn't much matter what changes were made because he was able to put in near identical times. His teammates on the other hand couldn't replicate his performance which baffled everyone.

Senna's complaining and accusations of cheating, merely because the sound coming from Michael's Benetton was different than his teammate AS WELL AS EVERYONE ELSE was nothing more than a hurt ego. The reality IS that Michael was using Left foot braking which is something that was unheard of at the time, and he kept 10-15% throttle input at all times while under braking to maintain revs in the power train so that upon releasing the brake, the car would not have to build revs in order to power out of corners like everyone else, and holding the revs up provided a bit of a boost to zip through and out of corners.

I'd politely say that you don't know what you're talking about.

The '94 Williams, for the first half of the season, had major handling issues - understeering into corners and oversteering on exit, the worst type of handling you could ever want from a racing car. The car was near impossible to balance for entry/exit - this affecting lap times, tyre performance (warming them up, wear, etc). The Benetton had no such handling issues. True, it had slightly less HP than the Williams, but HP is useless if you cannot put the tyres down to the tarmac and use them to their best performance ability.

Senna had the best car in '88 through to '90. The 91 car was not better than the Williams - he won that WDC only because the Williams was very unreliable for a good portion of the season. But, all of the greats have been in the best car on the grid when they won their WDCs. Schumacher was certainly no different.

There is no "James Dean" effect about Senna. He was the real deal.

I remember Senna smoking Schumacher in his '93 McLaren, which by the way, had at least 25-30 HP less than the Ford engine in the Benetton for a good part of the season.

Schumacher never had a decent team mate. Not even close. None of them were WDC material, let alone race winners on merit and skill.

Senna was renowned for his feedback to his engineers btw. The guy could tell his revs down to 100 revs at any point of the circuit just by listening to the engine whilst he was driving. For an engine that can rev to 19k rpm (mid 80s turbo era), that is absolutely gobsmacking imho.

Left foot braking was NOT unheard of at the time. Berger used it whilst at McLaren and Senna's team mate. It is commonly used in karting, and even FF1600. Senna was a karter himself, he was most certainly familiar with the style. If you actually knew anything, traction control cars had a certain engine sound. In the '94 season, all of the teams engine sounds changed bar Benetton, which sounded exactly like the traction control enabled '93 car (and the rest of the '93 field I might add). An example:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IERMHCRNB5w

I've been watching F1 for a long time, probably longer than you've been alive for.

BTW, Senna heavily disliked 4WS, active suspension, traction control, etc. Why? Because he felt that it took away from driver skill. Even the semi auto gearboxes today take away from driver skill. yes, I know that they add a safety aspect, but F1 did without them for many, many years without any deaths caused by using a manual gearbox I might add.

Want to improve the state of F1? It's pretty simple, but seemingly beyond the common sense of FIA today...

pokerman wrote:

Exediron wrote:

dpastern wrote:There are 4 wet weather drivers that stand out to me:

Senna
Clark
Hamilton
Verstappen

Nothing else comes close. Vettel is a very distant level away from these 4 guys in the wet imho.

Verstappen? Already? He's had one majorly impressive wet weather drive, and suddenly he's in a league with only Senna, Clark and Hamilton?

I think you're jumping the gun quite a lot on that one. Verstappen looks no more consistently impressive in the wet than Vettel.

In today's grid I would say he's second best to Hamilton but he's nearly 13 years younger so he will probably become the future rainmeister?

Future yes, but to put him now as one of the all time masters... Nah, not a chance

F1 MERCENARY wrote:NEWS FLASH! Senna was in the best car when he won ALL his titles, as was Prost. So that cancels that theory in your obviously bias assessment.

Would you mind looking at Prost's 1986 title and broadcast a properly prepared NEWS UPDATE, please? I think you got blinded by the FLASH of your NEWS...

F1 MERCENARY wrote:In 1994 The Williams was pretty damn good, if not a hair better than the Benetton, or are we to believe that was only during qualifying?

You're right, the 1994 Williams was the best car on the grid, but only after its handling problem was sorted - and Senna never lived to use it.

F1 MERCENARY wrote:And while Senna is among the greatest ever, Michael showed he was the greatest ever, on track and off, via results yielded over a historic career.

Both their careers were historic. I dare say that at certain points, both their careers were also hysteric.

dpastern wrote:

F1 MERCENARY wrote:

dpastern wrote: I'll take that bait. Schumacher is overrated. He had the best car for many years, and after Hakkinen disappeared, he had no real driver competition for the WDC. Coupled to weak team mates, team favouritism and cheating (from both Schumacher and his team(s).

If Williams hadn't screwed up the '94 Williams, resulting in Senna's untimely death, there's no way that Schumacher would have won 7 WDCs. Not even close.

As to Vettel, I'll be blunt - I also think he's overrated. He's not in the same league as Hamilton or Alonso. Not even close. Vettel is not particularly good in the wet, and is prone to failing under stress and high pressure situations.

I call BullDookie on this 1,000%.

NEWS FLASH! Senna was in the best car when he won ALL his titles, as was Prost. So that cancels that theory in your obviously bias assessment.
In 1994 The Williams was pretty damn good, if not a hair better than the Benetton, or are we to believe that was only during qualifying?

The FACT "IS" that the young phenom was simply extreme pressure at all times, and ANYONE would have had to deal with it, INCLUDING Senna.

I realize Senna was a supreme talent, but you guys seem to buy into the James dean effect far too much just because he died prematurely.
James dean was not a superb actor and he only starred in 3 films and they did just ok. Once he died hoever, this mythical status emerged and the guy inexplicably became enshrined in such an exaggerated way, that people believe he had chops the likes of a Marlon Brando, and that seriously isn't the case at all.

And while Senna is among the greatest ever, Michael showed he was the greatest ever, on track and off, via results yielded over a historic career.

When Michael joined Benetton he had a decent car but not the best, yet he was always faster than any teammate by a significant margin, and eventually when the car was capable of winning, HE was the one taking the vast majority of them. Then he moved to a struggling Ferrari and initially the car was decent at best, yet once again, he was outclassing his teammates EASILY, and after his arrival the team began to improve. His ability to communicate what cars needed and where they were lacking to his engineers was uncanny. At the same time, once a car was competitive at the front, he was so good that it didn't much matter what changes were made because he was able to put in near identical times. His teammates on the other hand couldn't replicate his performance which baffled everyone.

Senna's complaining and accusations of cheating, merely because the sound coming from Michael's Benetton was different than his teammate AS WELL AS EVERYONE ELSE was nothing more than a hurt ego. The reality IS that Michael was using Left foot braking which is something that was unheard of at the time, and he kept 10-15% throttle input at all times while under braking to maintain revs in the power train so that upon releasing the brake, the car would not have to build revs in order to power out of corners like everyone else, and holding the revs up provided a bit of a boost to zip through and out of corners.

I'd politely say that you don't know what you're talking about.

The '94 Williams, for the first half of the season, had major handling issues - understeering into corners and oversteering on exit, the worst type of handling you could ever want from a racing car. The car was near impossible to balance for entry/exit - this affecting lap times, tyre performance (warming them up, wear, etc). The Benetton had no such handling issues. True, it had slightly less HP than the Williams, but HP is useless if you cannot put the tyres down to the tarmac and use them to their best performance ability.

Senna had the best car in '88 through to '90. The 91 car was not better than the Williams - he won that WDC only because the Williams was very unreliable for a good portion of the season. But, all of the greats have been in the best car on the grid when they won their WDCs. Schumacher was certainly no different.

There is no "James Dean" effect about Senna. He was the real deal.

I remember Senna smoking Schumacher in his '93 McLaren, which by the way, had at least 25-30 HP less than the Ford engine in the Benetton for a good part of the season.

Schumacher never had a decent team mate. Not even close. None of them were WDC material, let alone race winners on merit and skill.

Senna was renowned for his feedback to his engineers btw. The guy could tell his revs down to 100 revs at any point of the circuit just by listening to the engine whilst he was driving. For an engine that can rev to 19k rpm (mid 80s turbo era), that is absolutely gobsmacking imho.

Left foot braking was NOT unheard of at the time. Berger used it whilst at McLaren and Senna's team mate. It is commonly used in karting, and even FF1600. Senna was a karter himself, he was most certainly familiar with the style. If you actually knew anything, traction control cars had a certain engine sound. In the '94 season, all of the teams engine sounds changed bar Benetton, which sounded exactly like the traction control enabled '93 car (and the rest of the '93 field I might add). An example:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IERMHCRNB5w

I've been watching F1 for a long time, probably longer than you've been alive for.

I'll just add a couple of things here to dpasterns comments.

Senna had the best car in 88 for his first WC. He also had a 3xWC who was regarded as the best in the world at the time as a team mate with no team orders or preferential treatment.

In 91 i'd say he had the best car for the first 5 or 6 races. After that Williams gained the ascendancy. The only reason Macca won the WCC that year was because of Senna.

I doubt most would say Prost had the best car in 86. I think that honour would go to Williams.

Unfortunately in 94 Senna was only around for 3 races.

I'm not 100% here but I have no idea how left foot braking could be mistaken for TC, especially by a racing driver. Senna's complaints were based on what he'd heard & seen. So lets see, the 1994 Benetton sounded like it was using TC, took off like it was fitted with TC, actually had TC fitted & years later Schumachers team mate publicly stated Schumachers car was using TC and his wasn't. Whats that about quacking like ducks?

When Schumacher was at Benetton, he also had a couple of chaps named Ross Brawn & Rory Byrn there to build a team around him. He also went with these characters to Ferrari. I say just as much credit for Schumachers success should be attributed to these guys, as well as Todt & Briatore as much as to Schumacher himself.

Senna had a very accute attention to detail. Just an example of this is the famous "moving wall of Dallas".

http://www.ayrton-senna.net/the-story-o ... ving-wall/

Senna won a lot of his races in what was the 2nd, 3rd & even 4th best car on the grid. I'm not sure Schumacher is able to make such a claim.

That'll do for now.

Oh, & just one last question for F1 Mercenary.

Did Schumacher have ANY faults?

Even the most ardent Senna fan, if they're being honest with themselves, will admit he was a flawed genius.

Jezza13 wrote:

dpastern wrote:

F1 MERCENARY wrote:

dpastern wrote: I'll take that bait. Schumacher is overrated. He had the best car for many years, and after Hakkinen disappeared, he had no real driver competition for the WDC. Coupled to weak team mates, team favouritism and cheating (from both Schumacher and his team(s).

If Williams hadn't screwed up the '94 Williams, resulting in Senna's untimely death, there's no way that Schumacher would have won 7 WDCs. Not even close.

As to Vettel, I'll be blunt - I also think he's overrated. He's not in the same league as Hamilton or Alonso. Not even close. Vettel is not particularly good in the wet, and is prone to failing under stress and high pressure situations.

I call BullDookie on this 1,000%.

NEWS FLASH! Senna was in the best car when he won ALL his titles, as was Prost. So that cancels that theory in your obviously bias assessment.
In 1994 The Williams was pretty damn good, if not a hair better than the Benetton, or are we to believe that was only during qualifying?

The FACT "IS" that the young phenom was simply extreme pressure at all times, and ANYONE would have had to deal with it, INCLUDING Senna.

I realize Senna was a supreme talent, but you guys seem to buy into the James dean effect far too much just because he died prematurely.
James dean was not a superb actor and he only starred in 3 films and they did just ok. Once he died hoever, this mythical status emerged and the guy inexplicably became enshrined in such an exaggerated way, that people believe he had chops the likes of a Marlon Brando, and that seriously isn't the case at all.

And while Senna is among the greatest ever, Michael showed he was the greatest ever, on track and off, via results yielded over a historic career.

When Michael joined Benetton he had a decent car but not the best, yet he was always faster than any teammate by a significant margin, and eventually when the car was capable of winning, HE was the one taking the vast majority of them. Then he moved to a struggling Ferrari and initially the car was decent at best, yet once again, he was outclassing his teammates EASILY, and after his arrival the team began to improve. His ability to communicate what cars needed and where they were lacking to his engineers was uncanny. At the same time, once a car was competitive at the front, he was so good that it didn't much matter what changes were made because he was able to put in near identical times. His teammates on the other hand couldn't replicate his performance which baffled everyone.

Senna's complaining and accusations of cheating, merely because the sound coming from Michael's Benetton was different than his teammate AS WELL AS EVERYONE ELSE was nothing more than a hurt ego. The reality IS that Michael was using Left foot braking which is something that was unheard of at the time, and he kept 10-15% throttle input at all times while under braking to maintain revs in the power train so that upon releasing the brake, the car would not have to build revs in order to power out of corners like everyone else, and holding the revs up provided a bit of a boost to zip through and out of corners.

I'd politely say that you don't know what you're talking about.

The '94 Williams, for the first half of the season, had major handling issues - understeering into corners and oversteering on exit, the worst type of handling you could ever want from a racing car. The car was near impossible to balance for entry/exit - this affecting lap times, tyre performance (warming them up, wear, etc). The Benetton had no such handling issues. True, it had slightly less HP than the Williams, but HP is useless if you cannot put the tyres down to the tarmac and use them to their best performance ability.

Senna had the best car in '88 through to '90. The 91 car was not better than the Williams - he won that WDC only because the Williams was very unreliable for a good portion of the season. But, all of the greats have been in the best car on the grid when they won their WDCs. Schumacher was certainly no different.

There is no "James Dean" effect about Senna. He was the real deal.

I remember Senna smoking Schumacher in his '93 McLaren, which by the way, had at least 25-30 HP less than the Ford engine in the Benetton for a good part of the season.

Schumacher never had a decent team mate. Not even close. None of them were WDC material, let alone race winners on merit and skill.

Senna was renowned for his feedback to his engineers btw. The guy could tell his revs down to 100 revs at any point of the circuit just by listening to the engine whilst he was driving. For an engine that can rev to 19k rpm (mid 80s turbo era), that is absolutely gobsmacking imho.

Left foot braking was NOT unheard of at the time. Berger used it whilst at McLaren and Senna's team mate. It is commonly used in karting, and even FF1600. Senna was a karter himself, he was most certainly familiar with the style. If you actually knew anything, traction control cars had a certain engine sound. In the '94 season, all of the teams engine sounds changed bar Benetton, which sounded exactly like the traction control enabled '93 car (and the rest of the '93 field I might add). An example:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IERMHCRNB5w

I've been watching F1 for a long time, probably longer than you've been alive for.

I'll just add a couple of things here to dpasterns comments.

Senna had the best car in 88 for his first WC. He also had a 3xWC who was regarded as the best in the world at the time as a team mate with no team orders or preferential treatment.

In 91 i'd say he had the best car for the first 5 or 6 races. After that Williams gained the ascendancy. The only reason Macca won the WCC that year was because of Senna.

I doubt most would say Prost had the best car in 86. I think that honour would go to Williams.

Unfortunately in 94 Senna was only around for 3 races.

I'm not 100% here but I have no idea how left foot braking could be mistaken for TC, especially by a racing driver. Senna's complaints were based on what he'd heard & seen. So lets see, the 1994 Benetton sounded like it was using TC, took off like it was fitted with TC, actually had TC fitted & years later Schumachers team mate publicly stated Schumachers car was using TC and his wasn't. Whats that about quacking like ducks?

TC; yes and no, see Toet's article to open your eyes.

When Schumacher was at Benetton, he also had a couple of chaps named Ross Brawn & Rory Byrn there to build a team around him. He also went with these characters to Ferrari. I say just as much credit for Schumachers success should be attributed to these guys, as well as Todt & Briatore as much as to Schumacher himself.

Brawn didn't join in '96, only from '97. There is always credit paid to these three guys in case you missed it. Just as how Honda was extra nice to Senna!

Senna had a very accute attention to detail. Just an example of this is the famous "moving wall of Dallas".

http://www.ayrton-senna.net/the-story-o ... ving-wall/

Senna won a lot of his races in what was the 2nd, 3rd & even 4th best car on the grid. I'm not sure Schumacher is able to make such a claim.

Yes. He won in Ferrari '96 if nothing else. Also Benetton '92 & '93. Cars that were not exactly the best.

That'll do for now.

Oh, & just one last question for F1 Mercenary.

Did Schumacher have ANY faults?

Yes, and they are well recorded, how he sometimes crumbled under pressure for example.

Even the most ardent Senna fan, if they're being honest with themselves, will admit he was a flawed genius.

Some comments in red above!

Jezza13 wrote:

dpastern wrote:

F1 MERCENARY wrote:

dpastern wrote: I'll take that bait. Schumacher is overrated. He had the best car for many years, and after Hakkinen disappeared, he had no real driver competition for the WDC. Coupled to weak team mates, team favouritism and cheating (from both Schumacher and his team(s).

If Williams hadn't screwed up the '94 Williams, resulting in Senna's untimely death, there's no way that Schumacher would have won 7 WDCs. Not even close.

As to Vettel, I'll be blunt - I also think he's overrated. He's not in the same league as Hamilton or Alonso. Not even close. Vettel is not particularly good in the wet, and is prone to failing under stress and high pressure situations.

I call BullDookie on this 1,000%.

NEWS FLASH! Senna was in the best car when he won ALL his titles, as was Prost. So that cancels that theory in your obviously bias assessment.
In 1994 The Williams was pretty damn good, if not a hair better than the Benetton, or are we to believe that was only during qualifying?

The FACT "IS" that the young phenom was simply extreme pressure at all times, and ANYONE would have had to deal with it, INCLUDING Senna.

I realize Senna was a supreme talent, but you guys seem to buy into the James dean effect far too much just because he died prematurely.
James dean was not a superb actor and he only starred in 3 films and they did just ok. Once he died hoever, this mythical status emerged and the guy inexplicably became enshrined in such an exaggerated way, that people believe he had chops the likes of a Marlon Brando, and that seriously isn't the case at all.

And while Senna is among the greatest ever, Michael showed he was the greatest ever, on track and off, via results yielded over a historic career.

When Michael joined Benetton he had a decent car but not the best, yet he was always faster than any teammate by a significant margin, and eventually when the car was capable of winning, HE was the one taking the vast majority of them. Then he moved to a struggling Ferrari and initially the car was decent at best, yet once again, he was outclassing his teammates EASILY, and after his arrival the team began to improve. His ability to communicate what cars needed and where they were lacking to his engineers was uncanny. At the same time, once a car was competitive at the front, he was so good that it didn't much matter what changes were made because he was able to put in near identical times. His teammates on the other hand couldn't replicate his performance which baffled everyone.

Senna's complaining and accusations of cheating, merely because the sound coming from Michael's Benetton was different than his teammate AS WELL AS EVERYONE ELSE was nothing more than a hurt ego. The reality IS that Michael was using Left foot braking which is something that was unheard of at the time, and he kept 10-15% throttle input at all times while under braking to maintain revs in the power train so that upon releasing the brake, the car would not have to build revs in order to power out of corners like everyone else, and holding the revs up provided a bit of a boost to zip through and out of corners.

I'd politely say that you don't know what you're talking about.

The '94 Williams, for the first half of the season, had major handling issues - understeering into corners and oversteering on exit, the worst type of handling you could ever want from a racing car. The car was near impossible to balance for entry/exit - this affecting lap times, tyre performance (warming them up, wear, etc). The Benetton had no such handling issues. True, it had slightly less HP than the Williams, but HP is useless if you cannot put the tyres down to the tarmac and use them to their best performance ability.

Senna had the best car in '88 through to '90. The 91 car was not better than the Williams - he won that WDC only because the Williams was very unreliable for a good portion of the season. But, all of the greats have been in the best car on the grid when they won their WDCs. Schumacher was certainly no different.

There is no "James Dean" effect about Senna. He was the real deal.

I remember Senna smoking Schumacher in his '93 McLaren, which by the way, had at least 25-30 HP less than the Ford engine in the Benetton for a good part of the season.

Schumacher never had a decent team mate. Not even close. None of them were WDC material, let alone race winners on merit and skill.

Senna was renowned for his feedback to his engineers btw. The guy could tell his revs down to 100 revs at any point of the circuit just by listening to the engine whilst he was driving. For an engine that can rev to 19k rpm (mid 80s turbo era), that is absolutely gobsmacking imho.

Left foot braking was NOT unheard of at the time. Berger used it whilst at McLaren and Senna's team mate. It is commonly used in karting, and even FF1600. Senna was a karter himself, he was most certainly familiar with the style. If you actually knew anything, traction control cars had a certain engine sound. In the '94 season, all of the teams engine sounds changed bar Benetton, which sounded exactly like the traction control enabled '93 car (and the rest of the '93 field I might add). An example:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IERMHCRNB5w

I've been watching F1 for a long time, probably longer than you've been alive for.

I'll just add a couple of things here to dpasterns comments.

Senna had the best car in 88 for his first WC. He also had a 3xWC who was regarded as the best in the world at the time as a team mate with no team orders or preferential treatment.

In 91 i'd say he had the best car for the first 5 or 6 races. After that Williams gained the ascendancy. The only reason Macca won the WCC that year was because of Senna.

I doubt most would say Prost had the best car in 86. I think that honour would go to Williams.

Unfortunately in 94 Senna was only around for 3 races.

I'm not 100% here but I have no idea how left foot braking could be mistaken for TC, especially by a racing driver. Senna's complaints were based on what he'd heard & seen. So lets see, the 1994 Benetton sounded like it was using TC, took off like it was fitted with TC, actually had TC fitted & years later Schumachers team mate publicly stated Schumachers car was using TC and his wasn't. Whats that about quacking like ducks?

When Schumacher was at Benetton, he also had a couple of chaps named Ross Brawn & Rory Byrn there to build a team around him. He also went with these characters to Ferrari. I say just as much credit for Schumachers success should be attributed to these guys, as well as Todt & Briatore as much as to Schumacher himself.

Senna had a very accute attention to detail. Just an example of this is the famous "moving wall of Dallas".

http://www.ayrton-senna.net/the-story-o ... ving-wall/

Senna won a lot of his races in what was the 2nd, 3rd & even 4th best car on the grid. I'm not sure Schumacher is able to make such a claim.

That'll do for now.

Oh, & just one last question for F1 Mercenary.

Did Schumacher have ANY faults?

Even the most ardent Senna fan, if they're being honest with themselves, will admit he was a flawed genius.

Spot on.

Both Senna & Schumacher were fantastic drivers. I honestly think Senna was the faster and more talented overall (poles, wet races, wins, etc).

Vettel doesn't even remotely compare to either of them. He has the same amount of talent as Senna's pinkie

That assessment may be a bit blunt or undesirable for Vettel's fans, but it is as I see it.

I can't way for Leclerc to destroy him this year.

dpastern wrote:

Jezza13 wrote:

dpastern wrote:

F1 MERCENARY wrote: I call BullDookie on this 1,000%.

NEWS FLASH! Senna was in the best car when he won ALL his titles, as was Prost. So that cancels that theory in your obviously bias assessment.
In 1994 The Williams was pretty damn good, if not a hair better than the Benetton, or are we to believe that was only during qualifying?

The FACT "IS" that the young phenom was simply extreme pressure at all times, and ANYONE would have had to deal with it, INCLUDING Senna.

I realize Senna was a supreme talent, but you guys seem to buy into the James dean effect far too much just because he died prematurely.
James dean was not a superb actor and he only starred in 3 films and they did just ok. Once he died hoever, this mythical status emerged and the guy inexplicably became enshrined in such an exaggerated way, that people believe he had chops the likes of a Marlon Brando, and that seriously isn't the case at all.

And while Senna is among the greatest ever, Michael showed he was the greatest ever, on track and off, via results yielded over a historic career.

When Michael joined Benetton he had a decent car but not the best, yet he was always faster than any teammate by a significant margin, and eventually when the car was capable of winning, HE was the one taking the vast majority of them. Then he moved to a struggling Ferrari and initially the car was decent at best, yet once again, he was outclassing his teammates EASILY, and after his arrival the team began to improve. His ability to communicate what cars needed and where they were lacking to his engineers was uncanny. At the same time, once a car was competitive at the front, he was so good that it didn't much matter what changes were made because he was able to put in near identical times. His teammates on the other hand couldn't replicate his performance which baffled everyone.

Senna's complaining and accusations of cheating, merely because the sound coming from Michael's Benetton was different than his teammate AS WELL AS EVERYONE ELSE was nothing more than a hurt ego. The reality IS that Michael was using Left foot braking which is something that was unheard of at the time, and he kept 10-15% throttle input at all times while under braking to maintain revs in the power train so that upon releasing the brake, the car would not have to build revs in order to power out of corners like everyone else, and holding the revs up provided a bit of a boost to zip through and out of corners.

I'd politely say that you don't know what you're talking about.

The '94 Williams, for the first half of the season, had major handling issues - understeering into corners and oversteering on exit, the worst type of handling you could ever want from a racing car. The car was near impossible to balance for entry/exit - this affecting lap times, tyre performance (warming them up, wear, etc). The Benetton had no such handling issues. True, it had slightly less HP than the Williams, but HP is useless if you cannot put the tyres down to the tarmac and use them to their best performance ability.

Senna had the best car in '88 through to '90. The 91 car was not better than the Williams - he won that WDC only because the Williams was very unreliable for a good portion of the season. But, all of the greats have been in the best car on the grid when they won their WDCs. Schumacher was certainly no different.

There is no "James Dean" effect about Senna. He was the real deal.

I remember Senna smoking Schumacher in his '93 McLaren, which by the way, had at least 25-30 HP less than the Ford engine in the Benetton for a good part of the season.

Schumacher never had a decent team mate. Not even close. None of them were WDC material, let alone race winners on merit and skill.

Senna was renowned for his feedback to his engineers btw. The guy could tell his revs down to 100 revs at any point of the circuit just by listening to the engine whilst he was driving. For an engine that can rev to 19k rpm (mid 80s turbo era), that is absolutely gobsmacking imho.

Left foot braking was NOT unheard of at the time. Berger used it whilst at McLaren and Senna's team mate. It is commonly used in karting, and even FF1600. Senna was a karter himself, he was most certainly familiar with the style. If you actually knew anything, traction control cars had a certain engine sound. In the '94 season, all of the teams engine sounds changed bar Benetton, which sounded exactly like the traction control enabled '93 car (and the rest of the '93 field I might add). An example:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IERMHCRNB5w

I've been watching F1 for a long time, probably longer than you've been alive for.

I'll just add a couple of things here to dpasterns comments.

Senna had the best car in 88 for his first WC. He also had a 3xWC who was regarded as the best in the world at the time as a team mate with no team orders or preferential treatment.

In 91 i'd say he had the best car for the first 5 or 6 races. After that Williams gained the ascendancy. The only reason Macca won the WCC that year was because of Senna.

I doubt most would say Prost had the best car in 86. I think that honour would go to Williams.

Unfortunately in 94 Senna was only around for 3 races.

I'm not 100% here but I have no idea how left foot braking could be mistaken for TC, especially by a racing driver. Senna's complaints were based on what he'd heard & seen. So lets see, the 1994 Benetton sounded like it was using TC, took off like it was fitted with TC, actually had TC fitted & years later Schumachers team mate publicly stated Schumachers car was using TC and his wasn't. Whats that about quacking like ducks?

When Schumacher was at Benetton, he also had a couple of chaps named Ross Brawn & Rory Byrn there to build a team around him. He also went with these characters to Ferrari. I say just as much credit for Schumachers success should be attributed to these guys, as well as Todt & Briatore as much as to Schumacher himself.

Senna had a very accute attention to detail. Just an example of this is the famous "moving wall of Dallas".

http://www.ayrton-senna.net/the-story-o ... ving-wall/

Senna won a lot of his races in what was the 2nd, 3rd & even 4th best car on the grid. I'm not sure Schumacher is able to make such a claim.

That'll do for now.

Oh, & just one last question for F1 Mercenary.

Did Schumacher have ANY faults?

Even the most ardent Senna fan, if they're being honest with themselves, will admit he was a flawed genius.

Spot on.

Both Senna & Schumacher were fantastic drivers. I honestly think Senna was the faster and more talented overall (poles, wet races, wins, etc).

Vettel doesn't even remotely compare to either of them. He has the same amount of talent as Senna's pinkie

That assessment may be a bit blunt or undesirable for Vettel's fans, but it is as I see it.

I can't way for Leclerc to destroy him this year.

While he's not Senna nor Schumi, to say that a 4xWDC has the talent of Senna's pinkie is a bit rich. His car didn't drive itself.

Also, waiting for someone to "destroy" him makes it sound like you have an agenda, something against Seb... Are you sure you are 100% objective? It doesn't come across like that from what you are writing

Jezza13 wrote: Senna won a lot of his races in what was the 2nd, 3rd & even 4th best car on the grid. I'm not sure Schumacher is able to make such a claim.

I'm struggling with this point, tbh. Schumacher won races in every single year he raced (in his "first" career). You can't seriously be suggesting that he enjoyed the best car throughout that time? Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but it seems an extraordinary claim.

My personal view is that Senna was the fastest driver ever to sit in an F1 car. But at the same time I think it's impossible to ignore the absolute monster driver that Schumacher was and I don't think we need to downplay his achievements in order to make others appear better. Schumacher pulled off some truly memorable drives that I think few drivers past and present would be able to equal and whatever one may feel about his character there should be no question about the enormous talent he had. One can't shrug off drives like Spain in '94, Spa '97, Monaco '97 or especially Spain '96 as him being in the best car. Some of those drives were truly epic and showed he was world-class

Zoue wrote:

Jezza13 wrote: Senna won a lot of his races in what was the 2nd, 3rd & even 4th best car on the grid. I'm not sure Schumacher is able to make such a claim.

I'm struggling with this point, tbh. Schumacher won races in every single year he raced (in his "first" career). You can't seriously be suggesting that he enjoyed the best car throughout that time? Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but it seems an extraordinary claim.

My personal view is that Senna was the fastest driver ever to sit in an F1 car. But at the same time I think it's impossible to ignore the absolute monster driver that Schumacher was and I don't think we need to downplay his achievements in order to make others appear better. Schumacher pulled off some truly memorable drives that I think few drivers past and present would be able to equal and whatever one may feel about his character there should be no question about the enormous talent he had. One can't shrug off drives like Spain in '94, Spa '97, Monaco '97 or especially Spain '96 as him being in the best car. Some of those drives were truly epic and showed he was world-class

I was more trying to make the point for Senna & not so much against Schumacher but I will say I believe on the whole Senna had to deal with more inferior equipment when compared to the other teams & a higher calibre of opposition than Schumacher did.

Siao7 wrote:

dpastern wrote:

Jezza13 wrote:

dpastern wrote:

F1 MERCENARY wrote: I call BullDookie on this 1,000%.

NEWS FLASH! Senna was in the best car when he won ALL his titles, as was Prost. So that cancels that theory in your obviously bias assessment.
In 1994 The Williams was pretty damn good, if not a hair better than the Benetton, or are we to believe that was only during qualifying?

The FACT "IS" that the young phenom was simply extreme pressure at all times, and ANYONE would have had to deal with it, INCLUDING Senna.

I realize Senna was a supreme talent, but you guys seem to buy into the James dean effect far too much just because he died prematurely.
James dean was not a superb actor and he only starred in 3 films and they did just ok. Once he died hoever, this mythical status emerged and the guy inexplicably became enshrined in such an exaggerated way, that people believe he had chops the likes of a Marlon Brando, and that seriously isn't the case at all.

And while Senna is among the greatest ever, Michael showed he was the greatest ever, on track and off, via results yielded over a historic career.

When Michael joined Benetton he had a decent car but not the best, yet he was always faster than any teammate by a significant margin, and eventually when the car was capable of winning, HE was the one taking the vast majority of them. Then he moved to a struggling Ferrari and initially the car was decent at best, yet once again, he was outclassing his teammates EASILY, and after his arrival the team began to improve. His ability to communicate what cars needed and where they were lacking to his engineers was uncanny. At the same time, once a car was competitive at the front, he was so good that it didn't much matter what changes were made because he was able to put in near identical times. His teammates on the other hand couldn't replicate his performance which baffled everyone.

Senna's complaining and accusations of cheating, merely because the sound coming from Michael's Benetton was different than his teammate AS WELL AS EVERYONE ELSE was nothing more than a hurt ego. The reality IS that Michael was using Left foot braking which is something that was unheard of at the time, and he kept 10-15% throttle input at all times while under braking to maintain revs in the power train so that upon releasing the brake, the car would not have to build revs in order to power out of corners like everyone else, and holding the revs up provided a bit of a boost to zip through and out of corners.

I'd politely say that you don't know what you're talking about.

The '94 Williams, for the first half of the season, had major handling issues - understeering into corners and oversteering on exit, the worst type of handling you could ever want from a racing car. The car was near impossible to balance for entry/exit - this affecting lap times, tyre performance (warming them up, wear, etc). The Benetton had no such handling issues. True, it had slightly less HP than the Williams, but HP is useless if you cannot put the tyres down to the tarmac and use them to their best performance ability.

Senna had the best car in '88 through to '90. The 91 car was not better than the Williams - he won that WDC only because the Williams was very unreliable for a good portion of the season. But, all of the greats have been in the best car on the grid when they won their WDCs. Schumacher was certainly no different.

There is no "James Dean" effect about Senna. He was the real deal.

I remember Senna smoking Schumacher in his '93 McLaren, which by the way, had at least 25-30 HP less than the Ford engine in the Benetton for a good part of the season.

Schumacher never had a decent team mate. Not even close. None of them were WDC material, let alone race winners on merit and skill.

Senna was renowned for his feedback to his engineers btw. The guy could tell his revs down to 100 revs at any point of the circuit just by listening to the engine whilst he was driving. For an engine that can rev to 19k rpm (mid 80s turbo era), that is absolutely gobsmacking imho.

Left foot braking was NOT unheard of at the time. Berger used it whilst at McLaren and Senna's team mate. It is commonly used in karting, and even FF1600. Senna was a karter himself, he was most certainly familiar with the style. If you actually knew anything, traction control cars had a certain engine sound. In the '94 season, all of the teams engine sounds changed bar Benetton, which sounded exactly like the traction control enabled '93 car (and the rest of the '93 field I might add). An example:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IERMHCRNB5w

I've been watching F1 for a long time, probably longer than you've been alive for.

I'll just add a couple of things here to dpasterns comments.

Senna had the best car in 88 for his first WC. He also had a 3xWC who was regarded as the best in the world at the time as a team mate with no team orders or preferential treatment.

In 91 i'd say he had the best car for the first 5 or 6 races. After that Williams gained the ascendancy. The only reason Macca won the WCC that year was because of Senna.

I doubt most would say Prost had the best car in 86. I think that honour would go to Williams.

Unfortunately in 94 Senna was only around for 3 races.

I'm not 100% here but I have no idea how left foot braking could be mistaken for TC, especially by a racing driver. Senna's complaints were based on what he'd heard & seen. So lets see, the 1994 Benetton sounded like it was using TC, took off like it was fitted with TC, actually had TC fitted & years later Schumachers team mate publicly stated Schumachers car was using TC and his wasn't. Whats that about quacking like ducks?

When Schumacher was at Benetton, he also had a couple of chaps named Ross Brawn & Rory Byrn there to build a team around him. He also went with these characters to Ferrari. I say just as much credit for Schumachers success should be attributed to these guys, as well as Todt & Briatore as much as to Schumacher himself.

Senna had a very accute attention to detail. Just an example of this is the famous "moving wall of Dallas".

http://www.ayrton-senna.net/the-story-o ... ving-wall/

Senna won a lot of his races in what was the 2nd, 3rd & even 4th best car on the grid. I'm not sure Schumacher is able to make such a claim.

That'll do for now.

Oh, & just one last question for F1 Mercenary.

Did Schumacher have ANY faults?

Even the most ardent Senna fan, if they're being honest with themselves, will admit he was a flawed genius.

Spot on.

Both Senna & Schumacher were fantastic drivers. I honestly think Senna was the faster and more talented overall (poles, wet races, wins, etc).

Vettel doesn't even remotely compare to either of them. He has the same amount of talent as Senna's pinkie

That assessment may be a bit blunt or undesirable for Vettel's fans, but it is as I see it.

I can't way for Leclerc to destroy him this year.

While he's not Senna nor Schumi, to say that a 4xWDC has the talent of Senna's pinkie is a bit rich. His car didn't drive itself.

Also, waiting for someone to "destroy" him makes it sound like you have an agenda, something against Seb... Are you sure you are 100% objective? It doesn't come across like that from what you are writing

If Senna had such an opportunity, he'd have easily won those 4 WDCs.

No, the car did not drive itself, but it was superior to pretty much anything else on the track for that period of time. A number of drivers would have won those 4 WDCs...

Seb doesn't even remotely compare to Senna, or any of the greats like Fangio or Clark. Not even remotely. Sorry if that offends you.

As to Leclerc, I honestly believe that he will wipe the floor of Vettel in 2019, unless team orders are enforced by Ferrari of course. I expect Leclerc to out qualify Vettel in 2019, win more races than him, and finish ahead of Vettel in the WDC by the end of the year. Charles has demonstrated a finesse, in 2019 that I honestly believe Vettel lacks, at least in comparison. Charles is far better under pressure, and in wheel to wheel racing. He is also extremely fast and smooth. He reminds me of a young Prost in many ways.

dpastern wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

dpastern wrote:

Jezza13 wrote:

dpastern wrote: I'd politely say that you don't know what you're talking about.

The '94 Williams, for the first half of the season, had major handling issues - understeering into corners and oversteering on exit, the worst type of handling you could ever want from a racing car. The car was near impossible to balance for entry/exit - this affecting lap times, tyre performance (warming them up, wear, etc). The Benetton had no such handling issues. True, it had slightly less HP than the Williams, but HP is useless if you cannot put the tyres down to the tarmac and use them to their best performance ability.

Senna had the best car in '88 through to '90. The 91 car was not better than the Williams - he won that WDC only because the Williams was very unreliable for a good portion of the season. But, all of the greats have been in the best car on the grid when they won their WDCs. Schumacher was certainly no different.

There is no "James Dean" effect about Senna. He was the real deal.

I remember Senna smoking Schumacher in his '93 McLaren, which by the way, had at least 25-30 HP less than the Ford engine in the Benetton for a good part of the season.

Schumacher never had a decent team mate. Not even close. None of them were WDC material, let alone race winners on merit and skill.

Senna was renowned for his feedback to his engineers btw. The guy could tell his revs down to 100 revs at any point of the circuit just by listening to the engine whilst he was driving. For an engine that can rev to 19k rpm (mid 80s turbo era), that is absolutely gobsmacking imho.

Left foot braking was NOT unheard of at the time. Berger used it whilst at McLaren and Senna's team mate. It is commonly used in karting, and even FF1600. Senna was a karter himself, he was most certainly familiar with the style. If you actually knew anything, traction control cars had a certain engine sound. In the '94 season, all of the teams engine sounds changed bar Benetton, which sounded exactly like the traction control enabled '93 car (and the rest of the '93 field I might add). An example:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IERMHCRNB5w

I've been watching F1 for a long time, probably longer than you've been alive for.

I'll just add a couple of things here to dpasterns comments.

Senna had the best car in 88 for his first WC. He also had a 3xWC who was regarded as the best in the world at the time as a team mate with no team orders or preferential treatment.

In 91 i'd say he had the best car for the first 5 or 6 races. After that Williams gained the ascendancy. The only reason Macca won the WCC that year was because of Senna.

I doubt most would say Prost had the best car in 86. I think that honour would go to Williams.

Unfortunately in 94 Senna was only around for 3 races.

I'm not 100% here but I have no idea how left foot braking could be mistaken for TC, especially by a racing driver. Senna's complaints were based on what he'd heard & seen. So lets see, the 1994 Benetton sounded like it was using TC, took off like it was fitted with TC, actually had TC fitted & years later Schumachers team mate publicly stated Schumachers car was using TC and his wasn't. Whats that about quacking like ducks?

When Schumacher was at Benetton, he also had a couple of chaps named Ross Brawn & Rory Byrn there to build a team around him. He also went with these characters to Ferrari. I say just as much credit for Schumachers success should be attributed to these guys, as well as Todt & Briatore as much as to Schumacher himself.

Senna had a very accute attention to detail. Just an example of this is the famous "moving wall of Dallas".

http://www.ayrton-senna.net/the-story-o ... ving-wall/

Senna won a lot of his races in what was the 2nd, 3rd & even 4th best car on the grid. I'm not sure Schumacher is able to make such a claim.

That'll do for now.

Oh, & just one last question for F1 Mercenary.

Did Schumacher have ANY faults?

Even the most ardent Senna fan, if they're being honest with themselves, will admit he was a flawed genius.

Spot on.

Both Senna & Schumacher were fantastic drivers. I honestly think Senna was the faster and more talented overall (poles, wet races, wins, etc).

Vettel doesn't even remotely compare to either of them. He has the same amount of talent as Senna's pinkie

That assessment may be a bit blunt or undesirable for Vettel's fans, but it is as I see it.

I can't way for Leclerc to destroy him this year.

While he's not Senna nor Schumi, to say that a 4xWDC has the talent of Senna's pinkie is a bit rich. His car didn't drive itself.

Also, waiting for someone to "destroy" him makes it sound like you have an agenda, something against Seb... Are you sure you are 100% objective? It doesn't come across like that from what you are writing

If Senna had such an opportunity, he'd have easily won those 4 WDCs.

No, the car did not drive itself, but it was superior to pretty much anything else on the track for that period of time. A number of drivers would have won those 4 WDCs...

Seb doesn't even remotely compare to Senna, or any of the greats like Fangio or Clark. Not even remotely. Sorry if that offends you.

As to Leclerc, I honestly believe that he will wipe the floor of Vettel in 2019, unless team orders are enforced by Ferrari of course. I expect Leclerc to out qualify Vettel in 2019, win more races than him, and finish ahead of Vettel in the WDC by the end of the year. Charles has demonstrated a finesse, in 2019 that I honestly believe Vettel lacks, at least in comparison. Charles is far better under pressure, and in wheel to wheel racing. He is also extremely fast and smooth. He reminds me of a young Prost in many ways.

BIB: I'm not sure that's such a revolutionary standpoint when we're talking about the driver many consider to be the greatest of all time. I'd also say that Senna would have won every title since 2014 had he been alive in the winning car and somehow magically still 30 years old. Would that be such a shocking claim?

I'd agree that Seb doesn't compare to Senna, but that's somewhat different to saying he has the same amount of talent as Senna's pinkie. I'd agree with Siao7 that you appear to be driven by some agenda against Seb and don't seem to be looking at things completely objectively.

Leclerc may well beat Vettel, but I'm at a bit of a loss as to what people are basing that on. He's shown he can be quick but there again so has Seb so these predictions appear to be based purely on wishful thinking Personally I hope he does give Seb a run for his money but I think it's way too early to predict anything with any kind of confidence

dpastern wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

dpastern wrote:

Jezza13 wrote:

dpastern wrote:
I'd politely say that you don't know what you're talking about.

The '94 Williams, for the first half of the season, had major handling issues - understeering into corners and oversteering on exit, the worst type of handling you could ever want from a racing car. The car was near impossible to balance for entry/exit - this affecting lap times, tyre performance (warming them up, wear, etc). The Benetton had no such handling issues. True, it had slightly less HP than the Williams, but HP is useless if you cannot put the tyres down to the tarmac and use them to their best performance ability.

Senna had the best car in '88 through to '90. The 91 car was not better than the Williams - he won that WDC only because the Williams was very unreliable for a good portion of the season. But, all of the greats have been in the best car on the grid when they won their WDCs. Schumacher was certainly no different.

There is no "James Dean" effect about Senna. He was the real deal.

I remember Senna smoking Schumacher in his '93 McLaren, which by the way, had at least 25-30 HP less than the Ford engine in the Benetton for a good part of the season.

Schumacher never had a decent team mate. Not even close. None of them were WDC material, let alone race winners on merit and skill.

Senna was renowned for his feedback to his engineers btw. The guy could tell his revs down to 100 revs at any point of the circuit just by listening to the engine whilst he was driving. For an engine that can rev to 19k rpm (mid 80s turbo era), that is absolutely gobsmacking imho.

Left foot braking was NOT unheard of at the time. Berger used it whilst at McLaren and Senna's team mate. It is commonly used in karting, and even FF1600. Senna was a karter himself, he was most certainly familiar with the style. If you actually knew anything, traction control cars had a certain engine sound. In the '94 season, all of the teams engine sounds changed bar Benetton, which sounded exactly like the traction control enabled '93 car (and the rest of the '93 field I might add). An example:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IERMHCRNB5w

I've been watching F1 for a long time, probably longer than you've been alive for.

I'll just add a couple of things here to dpasterns comments.

Senna had the best car in 88 for his first WC. He also had a 3xWC who was regarded as the best in the world at the time as a team mate with no team orders or preferential treatment.

In 91 i'd say he had the best car for the first 5 or 6 races. After that Williams gained the ascendancy. The only reason Macca won the WCC that year was because of Senna.

I doubt most would say Prost had the best car in 86. I think that honour would go to Williams.

Unfortunately in 94 Senna was only around for 3 races.

I'm not 100% here but I have no idea how left foot braking could be mistaken for TC, especially by a racing driver. Senna's complaints were based on what he'd heard & seen. So lets see, the 1994 Benetton sounded like it was using TC, took off like it was fitted with TC, actually had TC fitted & years later Schumachers team mate publicly stated Schumachers car was using TC and his wasn't. Whats that about quacking like ducks?

When Schumacher was at Benetton, he also had a couple of chaps named Ross Brawn & Rory Byrn there to build a team around him. He also went with these characters to Ferrari. I say just as much credit for Schumachers success should be attributed to these guys, as well as Todt & Briatore as much as to Schumacher himself.

Senna had a very accute attention to detail. Just an example of this is the famous "moving wall of Dallas".

http://www.ayrton-senna.net/the-story-o ... ving-wall/

Senna won a lot of his races in what was the 2nd, 3rd & even 4th best car on the grid. I'm not sure Schumacher is able to make such a claim.

That'll do for now.

Oh, & just one last question for F1 Mercenary.

Did Schumacher have ANY faults?

Even the most ardent Senna fan, if they're being honest with themselves, will admit he was a flawed genius.

Spot on.

Both Senna & Schumacher were fantastic drivers. I honestly think Senna was the faster and more talented overall (poles, wet races, wins, etc).

Vettel doesn't even remotely compare to either of them. He has the same amount of talent as Senna's pinkie

That assessment may be a bit blunt or undesirable for Vettel's fans, but it is as I see it.

I can't way for Leclerc to destroy him this year.

While he's not Senna nor Schumi, to say that a 4xWDC has the talent of Senna's pinkie is a bit rich. His car didn't drive itself.

Also, waiting for someone to "destroy" him makes it sound like you have an agenda, something against Seb... Are you sure you are 100% objective? It doesn't come across like that from what you are writing

If Senna had such an opportunity, he'd have easily won those 4 WDCs.

No, the car did not drive itself, but it was superior to pretty much anything else on the track for that period of time. A number of drivers would have won those 4 WDCs...

Seb doesn't even remotely compare to Senna, or any of the greats like Fangio or Clark. Not even remotely. Sorry if that offends you.

As to Leclerc, I honestly believe that he will wipe the floor of Vettel in 2019, unless team orders are enforced by Ferrari of course. I expect Leclerc to out qualify Vettel in 2019, win more races than him, and finish ahead of Vettel in the WDC by the end of the year. Charles has demonstrated a finesse, in 2019 that I honestly believe Vettel lacks, at least in comparison. Charles is far better under pressure, and in wheel to wheel racing. He is also extremely fast and smooth. He reminds me of a young Prost in many ways.

Why would I be offended in any way for you not rating Vettel? That's odd.

You can argue that in his 4 WDC's the rules were open for everyone to try and copy their solution. And indeed they did copy it. Seb just made it work better than anyone else. It's not like the 2014 token system that almost guaranteed that the best car would stay the best... Surely other drivers could have won with that car. Same as with some of the cars from Senna's, Hamilton's or Schumacher's eras. What does this mean?

Does this mean they do not deserve their WDC's? Not really. Vettel has proved himself multiple times. Is it his last year or the dreaded 2014 that make him look maybe worse than he is? Maybe, just as most drivers make mistakes or have mediocre years sometimes. Nothing more, nothing else.

I also expect Leclerc to give Sebastian a good run for his money, I hope he does actually. Nothing to boost a driver, wake him up, like internal competition. But I am not sure how you measure that he is better than Vettel under pressure. Vettel binned it a lot last year, surely enough. But I am not so sure if Leclerc was under the same immense pressure to make such comparison. Running at the back end of the field normally doesn't attract the lights on you as with the front runners. Plus with just one year of racing at this level, I'm not sure there's enough depth to make this comparison.

Adrian Newey is ten times World Driving Champion.

dpastern wrote:

F1 MERCENARY wrote:

dpastern wrote:

Mort Canard wrote:Is there ANYONE here who is willing to step up and claim that it diminished Michael Schumacher's accomplishments when he was beaten three years running by a young Nico Rosberg???


Source: http://seethrumag.com/wp-content/upload ... 308201.jpg

I'll take that bait. Schumacher is overrated. He had the best car for many years, and after Hakkinen disappeared, he had no real driver competition for the WDC. Coupled to weak team mates, team favouritism and cheating (from both Schumacher and his team(s).

If Williams hadn't screwed up the '94 Williams, resulting in Senna's untimely death, there's no way that Schumacher would have won 7 WDCs. Not even close.

As to Vettel, I'll be blunt - I also think he's overrated. He's not in the same league as Hamilton or Alonso. Not even close. Vettel is not particularly good in the wet, and is prone to failing under stress and high pressure situations.

I call BullDookie on this 1,000%.

NEWS FLASH! Senna was in the best car when he won ALL his titles, as was Prost. So that cancels that theory in your obviously bias assessment.
In 1994 The Williams was pretty damn good, if not a hair better than the Benetton, or are we to believe that was only during qualifying?

The FACT "IS" that the young phenom was simply extreme pressure at all times, and ANYONE would have had to deal with it, INCLUDING Senna.

I realize Senna was a supreme talent, but you guys seem to buy into the James dean effect far too much just because he died prematurely.
James dean was not a superb actor and he only starred in 3 films and they did just ok. Once he died hoever, this mythical status emerged and the guy inexplicably became enshrined in such an exaggerated way, that people believe he had chops the likes of a Marlon Brando, and that seriously isn't the case at all.

And while Senna is among the greatest ever, Michael showed he was the greatest ever, on track and off, via results yielded over a historic career.

When Michael joined Benetton he had a decent car but not the best, yet he was always faster than any teammate by a significant margin, and eventually when the car was capable of winning, HE was the one taking the vast majority of them. Then he moved to a struggling Ferrari and initially the car was decent at best, yet once again, he was outclassing his teammates EASILY, and after his arrival the team began to improve. His ability to communicate what cars needed and where they were lacking to his engineers was uncanny. At the same time, once a car was competitive at the front, he was so good that it didn't much matter what changes were made because he was able to put in near identical times. His teammates on the other hand couldn't replicate his performance which baffled everyone.

Senna's complaining and accusations of cheating, merely because the sound coming from Michael's Benetton was different than his teammate AS WELL AS EVERYONE ELSE was nothing more than a hurt ego. The reality IS that Michael was using Left foot braking which is something that was unheard of at the time, and he kept 10-15% throttle input at all times while under braking to maintain revs in the power train so that upon releasing the brake, the car would not have to build revs in order to power out of corners like everyone else, and holding the revs up provided a bit of a boost to zip through and out of corners.

I'd politely say that you don't know what you're talking about.

The '94 Williams, for the first half of the season, had major handling issues - understeering into corners and oversteering on exit, the worst type of handling you could ever want from a racing car. The car was near impossible to balance for entry/exit - this affecting lap times, tyre performance (warming them up, wear, etc). The Benetton had no such handling issues. True, it had slightly less HP than the Williams, but HP is useless if you cannot put the tyres down to the tarmac and use them to their best performance ability.

Senna had the best car in '88 through to '90. The 91 car was not better than the Williams - he won that WDC only because the Williams was very unreliable for a good portion of the season. But, all of the greats have been in the best car on the grid when they won their WDCs. Schumacher was certainly no different.

There is no "James Dean" effect about Senna. He was the real deal.

I remember Senna smoking Schumacher in his '93 McLaren, which by the way, had at least 25-30 HP less than the Ford engine in the Benetton for a good part of the season.

Schumacher never had a decent team mate. Not even close. None of them were WDC material, let alone race winners on merit and skill.

Senna was renowned for his feedback to his engineers btw. The guy could tell his revs down to 100 revs at any point of the circuit just by listening to the engine whilst he was driving. For an engine that can rev to 19k rpm (mid 80s turbo era), that is absolutely gobsmacking imho.

Left foot braking was NOT unheard of at the time. Berger used it whilst at McLaren and Senna's team mate. It is commonly used in karting, and even FF1600. Senna was a karter himself, he was most certainly familiar with the style. If you actually knew anything, traction control cars had a certain engine sound. In the '94 season, all of the teams engine sounds changed bar Benetton, which sounded exactly like the traction control enabled '93 car (and the rest of the '93 field I might add). An example:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IERMHCRNB5w

I've been watching F1 for a long time, probably longer than you've been alive for.

That covers a lot of points very well.

dpastern wrote:BTW, Senna heavily disliked 4WS, active suspension, traction control, etc. Why? Because he felt that it took away from driver skill. Even the semi auto gearboxes today take away from driver skill. yes, I know that they add a safety aspect, but F1 did without them for many, many years without any deaths caused by using a manual gearbox I might add.

Want to improve the state of F1? It's pretty simple, but seemingly beyond the common sense of FIA today...

In contrast Schumacher liked all the driver aids.

Siao7 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Exediron wrote:

dpastern wrote:There are 4 wet weather drivers that stand out to me:

Senna
Clark
Hamilton
Verstappen

Nothing else comes close. Vettel is a very distant level away from these 4 guys in the wet imho.

Verstappen? Already? He's had one majorly impressive wet weather drive, and suddenly he's in a league with only Senna, Clark and Hamilton?

I think you're jumping the gun quite a lot on that one. Verstappen looks no more consistently impressive in the wet than Vettel.

In today's grid I would say he's second best to Hamilton but he's nearly 13 years younger so he will probably become the future rainmeister?

Future yes, but to put him now as one of the all time masters... Nah, not a chance

No you can't label someone as being that until he proves that he is.

pokerman wrote:

dpastern wrote:BTW, Senna heavily disliked 4WS, active suspension, traction control, etc. Why? Because he felt that it took away from driver skill. Even the semi auto gearboxes today take away from driver skill. yes, I know that they add a safety aspect, but F1 did without them for many, many years without any deaths caused by using a manual gearbox I might add.

Want to improve the state of F1? It's pretty simple, but seemingly beyond the common sense of FIA today...

In contrast Schumacher liked all the driver aids.

Yes, because he had the best ones.

pokerman wrote:

dpastern wrote:BTW, Senna heavily disliked 4WS, active suspension, traction control, etc. Why? Because he felt that it took away from driver skill. Even the semi auto gearboxes today take away from driver skill. yes, I know that they add a safety aspect, but F1 did without them for many, many years without any deaths caused by using a manual gearbox I might add.

Want to improve the state of F1? It's pretty simple, but seemingly beyond the common sense of FIA today...

In contrast Schumacher liked all the driver aids.

I think Senna was personally against the driver aids because they *took* away from the driver skills. I mean F1 driver these days don't even have to worry about a clutch...this is why I dislike modern F1 so much - driver to team radio communication, too much BS with engine modes, semi auto gearbox, etc. Remove all of that stuff and it'll sort the wheat from the chaff. We have too much chaff in the mix these days imho.

Exediron wrote:

pokerman wrote:

dpastern wrote:BTW, Senna heavily disliked 4WS, active suspension, traction control, etc. Why? Because he felt that it took away from driver skill. Even the semi auto gearboxes today take away from driver skill. yes, I know that they add a safety aspect, but F1 did without them for many, many years without any deaths caused by using a manual gearbox I might add.

Want to improve the state of F1? It's pretty simple, but seemingly beyond the common sense of FIA today...

In contrast Schumacher liked all the driver aids.

Yes, because he had the best ones.

Really it was because of that?

I remember when Barrichello went from Ferrari to Honda he struggled to drive the car because of the lack of TC in respect to the Ferrari, hence he struggled against Button.

pokerman wrote:

Exediron wrote:

pokerman wrote:

dpastern wrote:BTW, Senna heavily disliked 4WS, active suspension, traction control, etc. Why? Because he felt that it took away from driver skill. Even the semi auto gearboxes today take away from driver skill. yes, I know that they add a safety aspect, but F1 did without them for many, many years without any deaths caused by using a manual gearbox I might add.

Want to improve the state of F1? It's pretty simple, but seemingly beyond the common sense of FIA today...

In contrast Schumacher liked all the driver aids.

Yes, because he had the best ones.

Really it was because of that?

I remember when Barrichello went from Ferrari to Honda he struggled to drive the car because of the lack of TC in respect to the Ferrari, hence he struggled against Button.

I tend to think that with top drivers they always want the advantage. You can find countless examples of top drivers complaining about something they don't have, and then falling silent or embracing it entirely once they've got it. It's not a dig at any driver in particular, it's just how the breed is. They want to win, and I distrust any F1 driver who claims they actually don't want this or that trick that will make it easier for them to win. Schumacher would probably have been a vocal opponent of driver aids if his competitors had had better aids.

Lol this conversations of Vettel vs Leclerc are quite funny and sounds like musings of a 6 year old as its not based on evidence rather what people want to happen.

So on one hand Vettel though made mistakes last year but his speed was still intact, but somehow Leclerc will "destroy" him so to put it in perspective should we say half s second between Them, or what will it be?

Rockie wrote:Lol this conversations of Vettel vs Leclerc are quite funny and sounds like musings of a 6 year old as its not based on evidence rather what people want to happen.

So on one hand Vettel though made mistakes last year but his speed was still intact, but somehow Leclerc will "destroy" him so to put it in perspective should we say half s second between Them, or what will it be?

Vettel will beat Leclerc.

Invade wrote:

Rockie wrote:Lol this conversations of Vettel vs Leclerc are quite funny and sounds like musings of a 6 year old as its not based on evidence rather what people want to happen.

So on one hand Vettel though made mistakes last year but his speed was still intact, but somehow Leclerc will "destroy" him so to put it in perspective should we say half s second between Them, or what will it be?

Vettel will beat Leclerc.

Re Vettel v Leclerc, Vettel to be given early priority (if required):

http://f1i.com/news/330055-vettel-prior ... dmits.html

aice wrote:

Invade wrote:

Rockie wrote:Lol this conversations of Vettel vs Leclerc are quite funny and sounds like musings of a 6 year old as its not based on evidence rather what people want to happen.

So on one hand Vettel though made mistakes last year but his speed was still intact, but somehow Leclerc will "destroy" him so to put it in perspective should we say half s second between Them, or what will it be?

Vettel will beat Leclerc.

Re Vettel v Leclerc, Vettel to be given early priority (if required):

http://f1i.com/news/330055-vettel-prior ... dmits.html

Bit embarrassing for Vettel that he needs to get allocated preference over a talented but inexperienced driver. I presume that means he will fist look at upgrades as well.

Exediron wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Exediron wrote:

pokerman wrote:

dpastern wrote:BTW, Senna heavily disliked 4WS, active suspension, traction control, etc. Why? Because he felt that it took away from driver skill. Even the semi auto gearboxes today take away from driver skill. yes, I know that they add a safety aspect, but F1 did without them for many, many years without any deaths caused by using a manual gearbox I might add.

Want to improve the state of F1? It's pretty simple, but seemingly beyond the common sense of FIA today...

In contrast Schumacher liked all the driver aids.

Yes, because he had the best ones.

Really it was because of that?

I remember when Barrichello went from Ferrari to Honda he struggled to drive the car because of the lack of TC in respect to the Ferrari, hence he struggled against Button.

I tend to think that with top drivers they always want the advantage. You can find countless examples of top drivers complaining about something they don't have, and then falling silent or embracing it entirely once they've got it. It's not a dig at any driver in particular, it's just how the breed is. They want to win, and I distrust any F1 driver who claims they actually don't want this or that trick that will make it easier for them to win. Schumacher would probably have been a vocal opponent of driver aids if his competitors had had better aids.

Indeed it goes for everything and includes the teams as well.

Rockie wrote:Lol this conversations of Vettel vs Leclerc are quite funny and sounds like musings of a 6 year old as its not based on evidence rather what people want to happen.

So on one hand Vettel though made mistakes last year but his speed was still intact, but somehow Leclerc will "destroy" him so to put it in perspective should we say half s second between Them, or what will it be?

I think there has been varied opinions about it, I guess you wouldn't want to be shunning any opinion that says Vettel will destroy Leclerc?

The truth is that in respect to out and out speed no one knows who will actually be quicker.