|
Post by Genghis on Dec 11, 2009 22:04:17 GMT
Senna was a genius. Schumacher, I'm afraid, dearest, was just a journeyman automaton. A word I've already used to describe Senna on the BSF this evening. It's often over-used, but fitting in this case.
|
|
|
Post by schumi on Dec 11, 2009 22:09:04 GMT
As an aside, Senna's career is romanticised. Everyone now regards him as a great, but back then he was called a loner, aloof, etc. Had he not died, I'm sure he'd have made many more enemies with his driving style.
|
|
|
Post by schumi on Dec 11, 2009 22:14:12 GMT
Senna was a genius. Schumacher, I'm afraid, dearest, was just a journeyman automaton. You just don't appreciate genius, honey. Genghis, the difference is, Senna waited for a good car, Schumacher helped make one. Where were Ferrari when he joined them?
|
|
|
Post by admin on Dec 11, 2009 22:14:55 GMT
I resent that slur against the greatest F1 team ever. McLaren, especially during the Dennis era were never in turmoil - Ron Dennis didn't do turmoil. To be sure, McLaren had to make do with a Ford engine 1993, but the car itself was easily a match for the Renault-powered Williams - it may just have been the most technologically advanced car seen in F1 and was a thing of beauty.
|
|
|
Post by schumi on Dec 11, 2009 22:18:22 GMT
McLaren, especially during the Dennis era were never in turmoil - Ron Dennis didn't do turmoil. Oh yes they did - they signed Montoya and Mansell, after all.
|
|
|
Post by Genghis on Dec 11, 2009 22:19:43 GMT
As an aside, Senna's career is romanticised. Everyone now regards him as a great, but back then he was called a loner, aloof, etc. Had he not died, I'm sure he'd have made many more enemies with his driving style. Schumi, I'm sure I've said this before but I hated Senna up until 1991, at which point I changed by mind - you couldn't help but admire the way he took the championship that year, despite the fact the Williams was SO much faster by the end of the year. In 1993, when Mansell disappeared off to IndyCar, Senna became my new hero. But all the time I didn't like him, I still thought he was an amazing driver and that he was the best driver. He was unique. Just look at the way he clinched his first World Championship in 1988. He had pole at Suzuka, but stalled the car on the grid. He was relegated to towards the back of the pack, but then stormed back to pass all the other cars, including Prost in the sister car, to win the race and seal the championship.
|
|
|
Post by Genghis on Dec 11, 2009 22:23:35 GMT
I resent that slur against the greatest F1 team ever. McLaren, especially during the Dennis era were never in turmoil - Ron Dennis didn't do turmoil. To be sure, McLaren had to make do with a Ford engine 1993, but the car itself was easily a match for the Renault-powered Williams - it may just have been the most technologically advanced car seen in F1 and was a thing of beauty. So how come after Senna left McLaren, they had to wait until 1997 before they won another race. The 1993 McLaren car was slow (even Senna could only get one pole position out of it), as were the 1994-1996 cars. That Senna still won five races in the 1993 McLaren is testimony to his genius.
|
|
|
Post by admin on Dec 11, 2009 22:28:41 GMT
An ill-conceived partnership with Peugeot, obviously - the Ford engine wasn't that bad. But it wasn't turmoil by any means.
|
|
|
Post by Genghis on Dec 11, 2009 22:31:20 GMT
Senna was a genius. Schumacher, I'm afraid, dearest, was just a journeyman automaton. You just don't appreciate genius, sweetheart. Genghis, the difference is, Senna waited for a good car, Schumacher helped make one. Where were Ferrari when he joined them? Are we back to Schumacher doing the welding again? ;D Senna wasn't that good at the politics of F1 (although he did manage to get the President of FIA sacked ). If so, he'd have got out of that bloody Lotus sooner and also stuck around at McLaren for a couple of seasons less. But when it came to driving skill, Senna had no peers. It is driving skill above all else that is the mark of genius.
|
|
|
Post by admin on Dec 11, 2009 22:31:21 GMT
McLaren, especially during the Dennis era were never in turmoil - Ron Dennis didn't do turmoil. Oh yes they did - they signed Montoya and Mansell, after all. Montoya was a good driver; a very good driver indeed. I never did take to Mansell.
|
|
|
Post by schumi on Dec 11, 2009 22:35:29 GMT
Montoya was a good driver; a very good driver indeed. See, now you're getting into the spirit of the argument. We'll argue black is white on this thread, but even genghis would back me on the Montoya line.
|
|
|
Post by Genghis on Dec 11, 2009 22:35:53 GMT
Oh yes they did - they signed Montoya and Mansell, after all. Montoya was a good driver; a very good driver indeed. I never did take to Mansell. The Mansell - McLaren partnership was a complete disaster, and came at a time when McLaren, having lost Senna, had turned into the comedy team of F1. Of course, though, Mansell was brilliant at both Williams and Ferrari. What a charger. His battles against Senna was the stuff of legend. Senna, being the greatest ever, got the better of Our Nige most of the time, but ocassionally, such as in Spain in 1991 (the famous wheel-to-wheel duel), Mansell came out on top. Oh, those were the days.
|
|
|
Post by Genghis on Dec 11, 2009 22:39:20 GMT
Montoya was a good driver; a very good driver indeed. See, now you're getting into the spirit of the argument. We'll argue black is white on this thread, but even genghis would back me on the Montoya line. In 2003, Montoya drove a stormer all season. But for two mechanical failure whilst winning races, he would have been World Champion that year. Montoya was bloody awful at McLaren though - played second fiddle to Kimi and wasn't a patch on the driver he'd been at Williams.
|
|