FORUMula1.com

[przemo]

So, are we to expect a McLaren 1-2 this weekend? Somehow, I think Ferrari will have something to say about that.

[racechick]

I see...

Lewis is better than Ayrton Senna and Michael Schumacher... combined...

Well, James Allen seems to think so...

Better than Michael...not propaganda.
Better than Ayrton? Now how many people do i want to p!ss off??

Only those who still take you seriously (anybody out there?)

Whilst everyone waits with bated breath for you latest pearls of wisdom

Why, thanks! (I'll pretend I haven't noticed sarcasm )

I'm really sorry that I pi*sed you off so hard, RC I'll try to be more careful when expressing my opinion on Lewis.

That aside, no matter how much I dislike MS, I am actually considering him better than Senna - simply based on the results. Only thing he missed to "achieve" is to get killed behind the wheel, thus he'll never have that extra feeling/respect Senna memories are generating, but he did achieve more than Senna. Yeah he was protected in Ferrari, but then again he managed to bring Ferrari back from the land of the dead... Senna's golden age was in dominant McLaren, he didn't really have to reinvent them as Schumacher did with Ferrari. Just my humble opinion.

Lewis? He has to prove better than likes of Kimi and Massa first. Once he manages to beat "minors", he can apply for big league... until then, he is just a talented kid with potential and an attitude problem.

Sarcastic?? Me??

I know Lewis cant be considered up there yet but watch this space...............

As to Michael v Ayrton. Michael was like a machine rolling forward with his minions in tow gathering trophies as he went. Yes he has more. (he wouldnt if Ayrton had lived). Ayrton was artistry itself, at one with his machine, dancing to the chequered flag and making his car do impossible things on the way. I guess it depends which side of your brain dominates as to which approach you appreciate most. Im definately with Ayrton. One was class the other crass.(I had to put that in cos it rhymed-Ok Michael cud drive, but he wasnt in Ayrtons league)

Dont worry about p!ssing me off Nikkon. I'm sure your a very nice man really

[McLaren Fan]

Senna's golden age was in dominant McLaren, he didn't really have to reinvent them as Schumacher did with Ferrari. Just my humble opinion.

well you could say that he did bring Honda along with him from Lotus then you could add he had to go against a multiple world champ as a team mate so i wouldnt say he had it served to him on a platter, quite the contrary Schumi's results that impress you were
and whats with this reinventing BS? so what he could throw $$$ around to his old teams main technical guys that aint hard.

Hm... I think Prost took just one title while he was Senna's teammate in McLaren. Without Prost, that would be Senna's 4th.

It is still far-cry from Michael's 7.

Of course, things might have - probably would have - been different if McLaren Honda managed to keep their superiority. Well, they haven't. Another thing is, McLaren was already strong when Senna joined them, having won '85 and '86 with Prost. There was no reason to reinvent, to rebuild McLaren. Honda engines have brought extra performance, but McLaren was far from poor without them at the time.

On the other side, MS came in much more mediocre Ferrari. He didn't bring any hardware with him, but he did bring Ross Brown... some other people, I believe. What he managed to do with Ferrari was magic. I don't like him at all, but I can't deny him that.

Now... we can go on and on about how much of that was Schumacher's doing. Would any other decent driver be able to achieve the same? Was he just lucky to be in Benetton and move to Ferrari at the best possible moments? What would Senna achieve if McLaren, say, managed to put their hands on Renault engines once they turned out to be best in the field?

There are so many ifs and so many alternative outcomes, but in this reality, Schumacher took 7 titles (score no-one will challenge for years, if ever), gave 5 consecutive titles to Ferrari (after they experienced 16 fruitless constructor years and 21 dry driver years) and left Ferrari strong enough to keep challenging and winning.

I'm sorry to say, guys, but that is one tough score to beat. And that is reality we live in.

I'm not so sure I can agree. Schumacher was afforded privileges that all other drivers could only dream of. If Senna was allowed to pick a money-no-obstacle dream time, I'm sure he would've done a similar job to Schumacher. Schumacher was clearly a talented driver, some of his performances demonstrated that, but I'm not sure it's credible to use Ferrari's resurgence when you look beyond the surface of the matter to say that Schumacher was greater than Senna.

I'm also not so sure it's fair to say that Senna's legacy was galvanised because of his fatal crash. From the mid-1980s people were saying he had the potential to be the greatest driver ever and by c.1990 many people were saying that he was the greatest driver ever.

[texasmr2]

As to Michael v Ayrton. Michael was like a machine rolling forward with his minions in tow gathering trophies as he went. Yes he has more. (he wouldnt if Ayrton had lived.

Sounds like you hate a winner and are just a sore looser?

Ayrton was artistry itself, at one with his machine, dancing to the chequered flag and making his car do impossible things on the way. I guess it depends which side of your brain dominates as to which approach you appreciate most. Im definately with Ayrton. One was class the other crass.(I had to put that in cos it rhymed-Ok Michael cud drive, but he wasnt in Ayrtons league)

Aryton was awesome but fact's are fact's, quit kidding yourself as you will sleep better at night once you realize the TRUTH!

[racechick]

The truth?? The truth being that Michael is better than Ayron was?? I will sleep well tonight...I'll laugh myself to sleep

[rhyscoles]

I think ferrari have been sandbaging through testing.

[nikon133]

Senna's golden age was in dominant McLaren, he didn't really have to reinvent them as Schumacher did with Ferrari. Just my humble opinion.

well you could say that he did bring Honda along with him from Lotus then you could add he had to go against a multiple world champ as a team mate so i wouldnt say he had it served to him on a platter, quite the contrary Schumi's results that impress you were
and whats with this reinventing BS? so what he could throw $$$ around to his old teams main technical guys that aint hard.

Hm... I think Prost took just one title while he was Senna's teammate in McLaren. Without Prost, that would be Senna's 4th.

It is still far-cry from Michael's 7.

Of course, things might have - probably would have - been different if McLaren Honda managed to keep their superiority. Well, they haven't. Another thing is, McLaren was already strong when Senna joined them, having won '85 and '86 with Prost. There was no reason to reinvent, to rebuild McLaren. Honda engines have brought extra performance, but McLaren was far from poor without them at the time.

On the other side, MS came in much more mediocre Ferrari. He didn't bring any hardware with him, but he did bring Ross Brown... some other people, I believe. What he managed to do with Ferrari was magic. I don't like him at all, but I can't deny him that.

Now... we can go on and on about how much of that was Schumacher's doing. Would any other decent driver be able to achieve the same? Was he just lucky to be in Benetton and move to Ferrari at the best possible moments? What would Senna achieve if McLaren, say, managed to put their hands on Renault engines once they turned out to be best in the field?

There are so many ifs and so many alternative outcomes, but in this reality, Schumacher took 7 titles (score no-one will challenge for years, if ever), gave 5 consecutive titles to Ferrari (after they experienced 16 fruitless constructor years and 21 dry driver years) and left Ferrari strong enough to keep challenging and winning.

I'm sorry to say, guys, but that is one tough score to beat. And that is reality we live in.

youre forgetting the Benetton cheif designer Rory Byrne who was a main ingredient in Ferrari's turn around like i said its easy when Ferrari are offering the $$$$ to bring virtually the same championship winning team that Benetton had to Ferrari. If Schumi had stayed where he was i am sure he would have had just as many world titles!

That is correct, but then again Ferrari had money before and yet failed to put together winning combination. Would Ros and Rory move to Ferrari without MS - or would they stay with him, maybe for a bit less money but more prospects of success? Was MS catalyst that has brought one of the best-ever squads in F1 together?

It is impossible to separate driver from his surroundings and judge him only on account of his talent and skills. If I recall well, Frentzen was more than a match for MS in cart or wherever they were battling before F1... yet managed nothing compared to MS in F1. Bad luck or just not capable to adapt to F1 requirements? I'm sure we can agree there were many great talents in F1 that never had real chance to shine; in the perfect world (for them), could they have proved better than MS or Prost or Senna or any other legend?

But that is all in What If. We'll never know. The only solid enough factor to rely on are achieved results. And that is where MS is and will be the one to beat for years.

That is the way I see it. I'm not even saying I'm right.

[nikon133]

I see...

Lewis is better than Ayrton Senna and Michael Schumacher... combined...

Well, James Allen seems to think so...

Better than Michael...not propaganda.
Better than Ayrton? Now how many people do i want to p!ss off??

Only those who still take you seriously (anybody out there?)

Whilst everyone waits with bated breath for you latest pearls of wisdom

Why, thanks! (I'll pretend I haven't noticed sarcasm )

I'm really sorry that I pi*sed you off so hard, RC I'll try to be more careful when expressing my opinion on Lewis.

That aside, no matter how much I dislike MS, I am actually considering him better than Senna - simply based on the results. Only thing he missed to "achieve" is to get killed behind the wheel, thus he'll never have that extra feeling/respect Senna memories are generating, but he did achieve more than Senna. Yeah he was protected in Ferrari, but then again he managed to bring Ferrari back from the land of the dead... Senna's golden age was in dominant McLaren, he didn't really have to reinvent them as Schumacher did with Ferrari. Just my humble opinion.

Lewis? He has to prove better than likes of Kimi and Massa first. Once he manages to beat "minors", he can apply for big league... until then, he is just a talented kid with potential and an attitude problem.

Sarcastic?? Me??

I know Lewis cant be considered up there yet but watch this space...............

As to Michael v Ayrton. Michael was like a machine rolling forward with his minions in tow gathering trophies as he went. Yes he has more. (he wouldnt if Ayrton had lived). Ayrton was artistry itself, at one with his machine, dancing to the chequered flag and making his car do impossible things on the way. I guess it depends which side of your brain dominates as to which approach you appreciate most. Im definately with Ayrton. One was class the other crass.(I had to put that in cos it rhymed-Ok Michael cud drive, but he wasnt in Ayrtons league)

Dont worry about p!ssing me off Nikkon. I'm sure your a very nice man really

Yes, but they were driving in different era. We can't compare Senna's winning McLarens and MS's winning Ferraris. Drivers' style had to and did change a lot with changing technology. How would Senna perform in nowadays car? Would he still be an artist, or more of a robot? What would MS do in '86 McLaren? Would he be any good?

Let me exaggerate a bit (well, a lot): it is like comparing WWI bi-planes and their pilots-knights, relying almost only on what they see and feel, with modern jets and their robot-pilots being assisted with all the possible and impossible gadgets and latest technology. Well, of course it is not that big difference but I hope you understand what I mean; different beasts require different skills to drive them successfully.

[nikon133]

Senna's golden age was in dominant McLaren, he didn't really have to reinvent them as Schumacher did with Ferrari. Just my humble opinion.

well you could say that he did bring Honda along with him from Lotus then you could add he had to go against a multiple world champ as a team mate so i wouldnt say he had it served to him on a platter, quite the contrary Schumi's results that impress you were
and whats with this reinventing BS? so what he could throw $$$ around to his old teams main technical guys that aint hard.

Hm... I think Prost took just one title while he was Senna's teammate in McLaren. Without Prost, that would be Senna's 4th.

It is still far-cry from Michael's 7.

Of course, things might have - probably would have - been different if McLaren Honda managed to keep their superiority. Well, they haven't. Another thing is, McLaren was already strong when Senna joined them, having won '85 and '86 with Prost. There was no reason to reinvent, to rebuild McLaren. Honda engines have brought extra performance, but McLaren was far from poor without them at the time.

On the other side, MS came in much more mediocre Ferrari. He didn't bring any hardware with him, but he did bring Ross Brown... some other people, I believe. What he managed to do with Ferrari was magic. I don't like him at all, but I can't deny him that.

Now... we can go on and on about how much of that was Schumacher's doing. Would any other decent driver be able to achieve the same? Was he just lucky to be in Benetton and move to Ferrari at the best possible moments? What would Senna achieve if McLaren, say, managed to put their hands on Renault engines once they turned out to be best in the field?

There are so many ifs and so many alternative outcomes, but in this reality, Schumacher took 7 titles (score no-one will challenge for years, if ever), gave 5 consecutive titles to Ferrari (after they experienced 16 fruitless constructor years and 21 dry driver years) and left Ferrari strong enough to keep challenging and winning.

I'm sorry to say, guys, but that is one tough score to beat. And that is reality we live in.

I'm not so sure I can agree. Schumacher was afforded privileges that all other drivers could only dream of. If Senna was allowed to pick a money-no-obstacle dream time, I'm sure he would've done a similar job to Schumacher. Schumacher was clearly a talented driver, some of his performances demonstrated that, but I'm not sure it's credible to use Ferrari's resurgence when you look beyond the surface of the matter to say that Schumacher was greater than Senna.

I'm also not so sure it's fair to say that Senna's legacy was galvanised because of his fatal crash. From the mid-1980s people were saying he had the potential to be the greatest driver ever and by c.1990 many people were saying that he was the greatest driver ever.

Sure, but MS was nowhere around in 1990.

As I said, they were driving in different eras, on different cars, different technology, different values, different... everything. It is hard to compare! That is why I am looking at results, and that is where MS is hard to beat. We will never be able to compare their talents, skills, passion... anything out of dry statistics, so we better leave it at that.