Senna or Schumacher

[beau]

Do you think that Schumacher would have beaten Senna to the champianship if Senna had not have died in 94

[danieljboys]

I think 'yes', but only by a small margin. Remember the points lead Schuey had built up in the opening races and Senna's spin in Brazil and then being taken out in the second race.

I'm sure Senna would've clawed his way back and got at least another title before he retired.

It's a terrible shame that we will never find out.

[Yoong Montoya]

I think "yes" but maybe only by 1 or 2 points. Imagine how exciting that Adelaide race would have been!


It would probably have even beaten the Hunt V Lauda duel in 1976.

[beau]

The outcome Schumacher slams into Senna at the first corner thus winning the championship like Prost and Senna 90

With Verstappern winning

what a same

[Wrex]

Look how close Hill got? Senna would have cruised it in.

[Mattracer]

Agreed.

[Speed]

I thought you asked who is/was better...

[Mr V]

Originally posted by Wrex
Look how close Hill got? Senna would have cruised it in.

Agreed also.

My question would be, Had Senna lived, would he have put in more effort to try and find out if the Benettons were running "dodgy systems"?? After all, according to reports, he was convinced that they were.

[DNQ]

Hill basically won bar a dodgy move at Adelaide, so there is no question that Senna would have won it.

[ljakse]

Originally posted by DNQ
Hill basically won bar a dodgy move at Adelaide, so there is no question that Senna would have won it.

Since this is the absolute answer, I don't even know why I voted.

And that question about if Senna would have raised the question about Benetton's cheating, I'm not sure TGF would even have had a chance to finish the season.

[Adam43]

1f...

[f1manoz]

Senna would have walked it by season's end. TGF would have collapsed even sooner under the pressure...

[Irv the Swerve]

I don't think Senna would have caught him. He was 30 points down before Imola, and even when he won races, Schumacher would probably have come second. Don't forget Hill was only in with a shout because Mick was suspended for a couple of races, black flagged at Silverstone and had a worn block in Belgium, and Hill won the races for which he was suspended. There was speculation at the time that Mick was dealt with harshly because he was running away with it and they needed to give the public something to look at - I think that could be the case.
Obviously there were rumours and speculation as to the legality of the Benetton, but as far as I call recall, the suspension was for overtaking on the warm-up lap, not for the car being illegal or not. Therefore I go for Schumacher, but I would have loved to have seen the fight.

[climb]

f1manoz, i don't think MS has ever been that weak in front of pressure, moreover Senna was the favourite big name, all the pressure would have been on him, MS had nothing to lose, thus it is not very likely that he would collapse

[tally-bally-ho]

As Irv the Swerve says, we cannot forget the harsh treatment of M. Schumacher by the authorities that year which severely affected the championship points. Neither can we forget the rumours about his car having some illegal software on board. Its easy to say Senna would have won because Hill nearly did, but that relies on Schumacher still receiving the punishments for overtaking on the British GP warm up lap, which only happened because he was walking the championship, which he wouldn't have been if Senna was still racing. Difficult to say who would have won the WDC in this situation, the short answer is no one knows.

[Aysedasi]

Originally posted by tally-bally-ho
Its easy to say Senna would have won....

It most certainly is.

And I do.

And not just for 94 either.....

[BSchneiderFan]

I think those who say that Senna would have won by a mile are kidding themselves. He hadn't 'won by a mile' in any of the first three races, now had he/ oh, but wait, it's Senna, so we must not criticise. We must not sully the name of the greatest sportsman ever... hang on, that's not right.

Schumacher by a few points, in my view. And Senna wasn't a saint, or a god. Get over it.

[Bononi]

Senna has lost the 3 first races, but he and the team were highly suspicious about the Benettons. Certainly something would be made to change the situation.

[Alx]

Originally posted by Mr V

My question would be, Had Senna lived, would he have put in more effort to try and find out if the Benettons were running "dodgy systems"?? After all, according to reports, he was convinced that they were.

I think he'd have won the championship, and then protested about them. I doubt he'd have let it rest...

[krt917]

As has already been said, you can't really guess where Ayrton would have been in relation to Schuey by looking at Damon, because of all the disqualifications, rule changes and so. I also wonder whether Williams would have developed the car as quickly with Ayrton as well as they did with Damon, but that's obviously open to debate.

Even if Ayrton had won in 1994 I think the writing was on the wall. With greats, the younger, hungrier driver always gets there in the end. It's just a matter of how and how long. It's just a shame we never got to see the battles that would have occurred in the meantime...

As for the allegations, I guess (pessimistically) that we'll never know for sure.

[NiceGuyEddie]

Originally posted by DNQ
Hill basically won bar a dodgy move at Adelaide, so there is no question that Senna would have won it.

No, Schumacher won bar FIA-tricks to keep the 1994 campaign tight. After Senna's death, F1 needed some PR quick. What better than a close titlebattle?

Anyway, if Senna had lived, I'd like to count Imola as his first victory in 1994. Schumacher would've came in second, so the score would be:
Schumacher - 26
Senna - 10

With 13 races to go, Senna had all the opportunity in the world to clinch that title. First of all, were talking about Senna here. Second, had Senna lived, Williams wouldn't be burdened by his loss, and would be much more capable of getting the potential out of the car. Again one of Senna's strenghts.

I presume it would've been a good one, but in the end, Senna would've snatched the title on experience. But none the less, he would've no doubt whatsoever about who is successor would be.

[NiceGuyEddie]

Originally posted by Alx
I think he'd have won the championship, and then protested about them. I doubt he'd have let it rest...

I dunno. Back in 1991, when Williams got their car working sometime around midseason, it was actually Senna who stirred things up at Shell and Honda in order to keep up with Williams.

Same thing can be said about 1993. McLaren were stuck with a lower specification Ford-engine than Benetton had. It was Senna personally who lobbied in order to get the same specification engine.

I think he would at least have suggested that the Benetton needed to be checked very carefully.

[krt917]

Originally posted by NiceGuyEddie
Anyway, if Senna had lived, I'd like to count Imola as his first victory in 1994. Schumacher would've came in second, so the score would be:
Schumacher - 26
Senna - 10

No, had Senna lived, he would have stepped out of the crashed Williams and been 30 points down...

Originally posted by NiceGuyEddie
Senna would be much more capable of getting the potential out of the car. Again one of Senna's strenghts.

More capable of getting the most out of it whilst driving, obviuosly, but do we know how good he was as a tester? I phrase this as a question as I'm not sure. McLaren had doubts about his testing ability (compared to Prost), but I don't know if that was still the case by 1993/94. Also, Damon, whatever else you say about him, was a very good tester.

Originally posted by NiceGuyEddie
I presume it would've been a good one, but in the end, Senna would've snatched the title on experience. But none the less, he would've no doubt whatsoever about who is successor would be.

Most likely!!

[jmb83]

let's look at it in a sensisible way.
Ayrton Senna was a driver who didnt give a **** about anyone else, taking out Prost etc, bvut he was never punished for it.
Herr Schumacher is a driver who does care about other drivers, as long as they're behind him, where they all belong. Michael gets way too much punishment.
The rules were even changed to stop him and Ferrari winning, didnt see any of that in '88 when /mcLaren won 15/16!!!!!
SCHUMACHER is the answer

[NiceGuyEddie]

More capable of getting the most out of it whilst driving,

obviuosly, but do we know how good he was as a tester? I phrase this as a question as I'm not sure. McLaren had doubts about his testing ability (compared to Prost), but I don't know if that was still the case by 1993/94. Also, Damon, whatever else you say about him, was a very good tester.

Senna presented the new benchmark in driver-involvement. If you are detailed in your feedback (which he was) and are on a mission to push your technicians to do the best they can, you pretty much fullfil the definition of a great developmentdriver.

So was Hill, but Hill always managed to mess up a raceduel.