Discussion
ELUSIVEJIM said:
Unfortunately, it seems your dislike for Senna clouds your actual judgment.
Senna was not a god. No one has ever stated that. He was human and of course made mistakes.
Unfortunately for Senna, his Williams team is also human and clearly made a mistake that cost Senna his life.
It was stated in court that the column could have broken but the sensors would still pick up steering movement due to the placement of the sensor at the steering wheel.
After everything I have studied about the subject I would state the bumps at Tamburello snapped the fragile steering column and this is what caused Senna to have no control and crash.
Just like every other accident at that curve, it was a mechanical issue.
Senna was not a god. No one has ever stated that. He was human and of course made mistakes.
Unfortunately for Senna, his Williams team is also human and clearly made a mistake that cost Senna his life.
It was stated in court that the column could have broken but the sensors would still pick up steering movement due to the placement of the sensor at the steering wheel.
After everything I have studied about the subject I would state the bumps at Tamburello snapped the fragile steering column and this is what caused Senna to have no control and crash.
Just like every other accident at that curve, it was a mechanical issue.
Wikipedia said:
In May 2011, Williams FW16 designer Adrian Newey expressed his views about the crash:
The honest truth is that no one will ever know exactly what happened. There's no doubt the steering column failed and the big question was whether it failed in the accident or did it cause the accident? It had fatigue cracks and would have failed at some point. There is no question that its design was very poor. However, all the evidence suggests the car did not go off the track as a result of steering column failure... If you look at the camera shots, especially from Michael Schumacher's following car, the car didn't understeer off the track. It oversteered which is not consistent with a steering column failure. The rear of the car stepped out and all the data suggests that happened. Ayrton then corrected that by going to 50% throttle which would be consistent with trying to reduce the rear stepping out and then, half-a-second later, he went hard on the brakes. The question then is why did the rear step out? The car bottomed much harder on that second lap which again appears to be unusual because the tyre pressure should have come up by then – which leaves you expecting that the right rear tyre probably picked up a puncture from debris on the track. If I was pushed into picking out a single most likely cause that would be it.
The honest truth is that no one will ever know exactly what happened. There's no doubt the steering column failed and the big question was whether it failed in the accident or did it cause the accident? It had fatigue cracks and would have failed at some point. There is no question that its design was very poor. However, all the evidence suggests the car did not go off the track as a result of steering column failure... If you look at the camera shots, especially from Michael Schumacher's following car, the car didn't understeer off the track. It oversteered which is not consistent with a steering column failure. The rear of the car stepped out and all the data suggests that happened. Ayrton then corrected that by going to 50% throttle which would be consistent with trying to reduce the rear stepping out and then, half-a-second later, he went hard on the brakes. The question then is why did the rear step out? The car bottomed much harder on that second lap which again appears to be unusual because the tyre pressure should have come up by then – which leaves you expecting that the right rear tyre probably picked up a puncture from debris on the track. If I was pushed into picking out a single most likely cause that would be it.
ELUSIVEJIM said:
LukeBrown66 said:
AS I said before there are those that treated him differently, I remember being at Silverstone on Friday in 93, sat in the stands and there was this grown man, English by voice, Brazilain flags everywhere, Marlboro everywhere, all the shirts etc, he was ONLY there to see Senna, nothing else mattered, once it stopped he left, not bothered by anything else.
That to me is odd, and sort of only happened with Ayrton I think. When you hear Prost talk about the test at Pembrey when they all had it out in 89 after Imola and you hear that Ayrton was crying, I mean this is not really a good sign, that would be worrying to me as a team boss, but Dennis embraced it.
Watch the press conference at Adelaide after 89, the passion in Dennis's voice, the total and utter disbelief that this push start was so not a wrong thing to do, I find it all very sad, very petulant and he was clearly allowed to be this guy by McLaren, and was obviously NOT finding that situation at Williams nor would it ever be there perhaps.
Why is that odd? I was at Silverstone in 1995 and many of the crowd left when Hill went out. Same with Schumacher in Germany.That to me is odd, and sort of only happened with Ayrton I think. When you hear Prost talk about the test at Pembrey when they all had it out in 89 after Imola and you hear that Ayrton was crying, I mean this is not really a good sign, that would be worrying to me as a team boss, but Dennis embraced it.
Watch the press conference at Adelaide after 89, the passion in Dennis's voice, the total and utter disbelief that this push start was so not a wrong thing to do, I find it all very sad, very petulant and he was clearly allowed to be this guy by McLaren, and was obviously NOT finding that situation at Williams nor would it ever be there perhaps.
This post is just rather laughable. The hate is clear.
Eric Mc said:
Those that refuse to accept that his death might have been made due to driver error are, de facto, assuming he could not make an error.
That is the issue. They have placed him in some sort of glorified saintly box where he was incapable of making a mistake. It's blindingly obvious in the way they LONG for the accident to have been down to some mechanical cause - and not human error.
No that’s just incorrect extrapolation. He was human and made mistakes as you have proven on other similar threads so we all know and accept he was capable of making mistakes. The issue here is whether he made a mistake in this instance. You have your opinion, others have theirs. That is the issue. They have placed him in some sort of glorified saintly box where he was incapable of making a mistake. It's blindingly obvious in the way they LONG for the accident to have been down to some mechanical cause - and not human error.
pablo said:
Eric Mc said:
Those that refuse to accept that his death might have been made due to driver error are, de facto, assuming he could not make an error.
That is the issue. They have placed him in some sort of glorified saintly box where he was incapable of making a mistake. It's blindingly obvious in the way they LONG for the accident to have been down to some mechanical cause - and not human error.
No that’s just incorrect extrapolation. He was human and made mistakes as you have proven on other similar threads so we all know and accept he was capable of making mistakes. The issue here is whether he made a mistake in this instance. You have your opinion, others have theirs. That is the issue. They have placed him in some sort of glorified saintly box where he was incapable of making a mistake. It's blindingly obvious in the way they LONG for the accident to have been down to some mechanical cause - and not human error.
LaurasOtherHalf said:
The conflicting statements about the vehicle data recorder and the "mysterious" way it was removed by Whiting and given to Williams intact, only for it to be returned with no data and smashed a month later always had me erring onto the mechanical failure of the steering column.
Exactly.Unfortunately too many have their views without actually taking the time to dig into what went on with the FIA and Williams
The biggest cover-up in F1 history.
ELUSIVEJIM said:
After everything I have studied about the subject I would state the bumps at Tamburello snapped the fragile steering column and this is what caused Senna to have no control and crash.
Just like every other accident at that curve, it was a mechanical issue.
Just like every other accident at that curve, it was a mechanical issue.
Another armchair expert, delivering a verdict from your basement and delivering it as “fact”
Muzzer79 said:
ELUSIVEJIM said:
After everything I have studied about the subject I would state the bumps at Tamburello snapped the fragile steering column and this is what caused Senna to have no control and crash.
Just like every other accident at that curve, it was a mechanical issue.
Just like every other accident at that curve, it was a mechanical issue.
Another armchair expert, delivering a verdict from your basement and delivering it as “fact”
LukeBrown66 said:
Thing is you always felt it likely it would happen, people like him, Gilles were always on that edge.
I have to admit my memories of him are tainted by what he brought to F1 overall, and that was that driving into people and going for gaps was fine, regardless.
The more you watch those years and I have been doing a lot recently you can see why Prost got to him, Alain was so effortless, all about race day, and Ayrton was totally lost without him, he literally could not see the point.
It was the greatest rivalry we will ever have in my eyes in F1 and when it stopped, my passion for the sport also largely stopped as I found Schumacher so utterly uninteresting and devious that even the bright spots of Hakkinen and Alonso beating him meant I moved on from F1.
I still take a passing interest and keep up with it to an extent, but those days were mercurial in so many ways
I agree.I have to admit my memories of him are tainted by what he brought to F1 overall, and that was that driving into people and going for gaps was fine, regardless.
The more you watch those years and I have been doing a lot recently you can see why Prost got to him, Alain was so effortless, all about race day, and Ayrton was totally lost without him, he literally could not see the point.
It was the greatest rivalry we will ever have in my eyes in F1 and when it stopped, my passion for the sport also largely stopped as I found Schumacher so utterly uninteresting and devious that even the bright spots of Hakkinen and Alonso beating him meant I moved on from F1.
I still take a passing interest and keep up with it to an extent, but those days were mercurial in so many ways
I agree with much of what you say later too, though IMO as with the sport itself we're talking small differences between the two men.
If we were to draw a perfect line for a racing driver, Senna was marginally one side, Prost another side by a similar margin.
I was mesmerised by F1 in this era...the seeds started in 1982 but by 1984 I was thoroughly addicted to the sport. With hindsight it started to wane when yours did.
Senna was a bit of an anti-hero for me, but by the time of his death he was the embodiment of what I liked best in a racing driver. Mansell had some of that but nowhere near the talent. Hamilton has it now.
Prost, on the other hand, was too clinical. Soulless. Much like Schumacher and Alonso. I can absolutely appreciate their skill in being able to churn out lap after lap within 1,000th of a second of the last...but it was never that exciting to watch to me...and as we know, even these guys had serious sporting flaws.
Crafty_ said:
Watkins said that when he was treating Ayrton he let out a little sigh and Sid always thought that effectively his soul left him at that moment.
In terms of the comments above about Prost, he tried to undermine Mansell at Ferrari. Prost was fluent in Italian and carried a lot fo influence in the team. Convinced that Mansell's car was superior to his he got the mechanics to swap the cars over so he got Nigels for the '90 British GP.
Having been tipped off and confirming (checked chassis plates..) and being the belligerent sort, Mansell out qualified Prost by just under a second and led the race until the gearbox started playing up, allowing Prost to take the lead (and ultimately the win), Nigel finally retired on lap 57.
From everything I've read, Prost always hated the wet, no surprise he didn't want to run in Oz '89.
He would use everything possible to defeat his rivals, no limit. Its suggested that the shenanigans at Suzuka in 1990 were all because Prost and Balestre were in cahoots. Senna felt wronged and quite plainly told anyone and everyone what would happen, no-one took any notice. He saw it as standing up for himself. I've seen footage of a drivers meeting/briefing where Ayrton quite calmly made his point and more or less said "this isn't on" and leaves.
Although Ayrton liked to see himself as fearless and project that image to rivals he's also the guy who got Watkins to teach him basic CPR and assistance, IIRC after Donnelly's accident. When Erik Comas had his crash at Spa, Sid arrived to find Senna tenderly holding Comas's head, reporting he'd done everything Sid had shown him - clear the wairway, checking breathing/pulse etc (and he had, correctly too). Yet this is the same guy who literally drove through Prost.
I don't think its too controversial to say that Ayrton was naturally a better driver, but tempermant and emotion occasionally got the better of him, had he been a bit more calculating like Prost he'd have been even better. I think it was Ramirez ( who dealt with both drivers through '88) that said Ayrton drove with his heart, Prost with his head.
We were robbed really, we never got to see Senna and Schumacher at it full tilt. I think it would have been fascinating.
Prost's words, paraphrased: He actually preferred the wet until witnessing a couple of terrible accidents caused by wet weather, the last being when Pironi drove into the back of Prost at Hockenheim, got launched over his car and had his legs shattered on landing. Prost after that was contemplating quitting the sport, decided to continue but on his own terms - going just fast enough to win, and not wanting to die in a racing car. Senna kind of proved Prost's point in that race, by barrelling into the back of Brundle down one of the straights and knocking them both out of the race. Senna, with a large lead but still racing around about as fast as he could, couldn't see Brundle in the spray, and Brundle was taking the straights a gear lower than normal because visibility was so bad.In terms of the comments above about Prost, he tried to undermine Mansell at Ferrari. Prost was fluent in Italian and carried a lot fo influence in the team. Convinced that Mansell's car was superior to his he got the mechanics to swap the cars over so he got Nigels for the '90 British GP.
Having been tipped off and confirming (checked chassis plates..) and being the belligerent sort, Mansell out qualified Prost by just under a second and led the race until the gearbox started playing up, allowing Prost to take the lead (and ultimately the win), Nigel finally retired on lap 57.
From everything I've read, Prost always hated the wet, no surprise he didn't want to run in Oz '89.
He would use everything possible to defeat his rivals, no limit. Its suggested that the shenanigans at Suzuka in 1990 were all because Prost and Balestre were in cahoots. Senna felt wronged and quite plainly told anyone and everyone what would happen, no-one took any notice. He saw it as standing up for himself. I've seen footage of a drivers meeting/briefing where Ayrton quite calmly made his point and more or less said "this isn't on" and leaves.
Although Ayrton liked to see himself as fearless and project that image to rivals he's also the guy who got Watkins to teach him basic CPR and assistance, IIRC after Donnelly's accident. When Erik Comas had his crash at Spa, Sid arrived to find Senna tenderly holding Comas's head, reporting he'd done everything Sid had shown him - clear the wairway, checking breathing/pulse etc (and he had, correctly too). Yet this is the same guy who literally drove through Prost.
I don't think its too controversial to say that Ayrton was naturally a better driver, but tempermant and emotion occasionally got the better of him, had he been a bit more calculating like Prost he'd have been even better. I think it was Ramirez ( who dealt with both drivers through '88) that said Ayrton drove with his heart, Prost with his head.
We were robbed really, we never got to see Senna and Schumacher at it full tilt. I think it would have been fascinating.
Edited by Crafty_ on Tuesday 4th May 16:23
I'm not sure what shenanigans you are referring to at Suzuka 1990. Pole position was in the same place it had been every year at Suzuka. Senna asked for it to be changed, after being disadvantaged by it in 1989 because it's off the racing line. They refused his request. I'm not sure what there is in there to feel "wronged" by unless Senna felt the FIA's job was to do what he tells them. I believe they did indeed move pole position on to the racing line the year after.
Speaking of head vs. heart, Prost often tried to play mind games with Senna. At Monaco 1988, Prost was stuck behind... I think Berger for about half the race while Senna opened up a lead of almost a minute. Once finally past Berger, Prost went as fast as he could because there's always a chance... he wanted Senna to see him putting fastest laps in, and Senna did respond, with Ron apparently yelling at him on the radio to slow down because Prost had no chance of catching him. Senna did indeed make a mistake and crash, handing Prost the win, though it can't be said whether he crashed because of trying to hard, or had settled and lost concentration.
In Monza 1988, Prost knew he had an engine problem early on and wouldn't last the race, so he turned the turbo boost right up, again to try pressure Senna into responding - which he did - in the hope Senna would burn too much fuel and run out. In the end it was moot because Senna clashed with a backmarker and was out of the race, but at the time it is true the Ferraris were catching him quickly as he was nursing his car home on low fuel.
In, I think France, either 1988 or 1989, Prost put in a fast lap in qualifying quite early in the session, and instead of waiting in the car for Senna to respond, Prost got out of the car, went and changed out of his racing suit and went and sat on the pitwall in his jeans. When asked what he was doing, he said "that's the best lap I can do. If Senna can beat that, he can have pole." Senna saw him (obviously), and went out in the car, trying harder and harder and getting slower and slower. Prost got pole.
Prost has also said that Senna's throttle technique gave him an advantage out of corners. Prost had tried to replicate it but couldn't make it work for him.
I wouldn't say Senna was naturally a better driver. He was faster, but he had weaknesses where Prost had strengths, and vice - versa. I think they were very evenly matched over a season, as it indeed proved in the two years they were together at McLaren.
For me, Schumacher combined the strengths of both drivers without the weaknesses and would have had the advantage over Senna for the rest of the 1990s, if their cars were equal - though I have little doubt Senna would have tried to block Schumacher joining Williams if it came to that. Schumacher was all set to do to Senna what Senna had done to Prost, IMO. Pity he turned out to be such a dirty driver too.
Edited by kiseca on Thursday 6th May 09:48
pablo said:
Eric Mc said:
Mark A S said:
I had 3 days before his death just separated from wife no 2, so was feeling rather down but looked forward to the GP on 1st May.
I am 99.9% sure steering failure caused him to crash, even with aero loss etc, cars do not tend to drive strait into a wall without some form of driver correction changing the cars attitude, he was Very unlucky.
It does when it bottoms out and gets deflected. The car was taboganning i.e. the front wheels were actually off the ground with no steering possible.I am 99.9% sure steering failure caused him to crash, even with aero loss etc, cars do not tend to drive strait into a wall without some form of driver correction changing the cars attitude, he was Very unlucky.
He was not a God. He made mistakes - all the time. Like all racing drivers, he had plenty of crashes where he made errors. Why are people so enthralled with his rather bonkers semi-mystic personality? He was a human who made errors - like all of us.
Every single Senna thread is the same, no one claims he was a god or infallible but you argue he wasn’t anyway... you seem to chop and change between “the car bottomed out and he had no steering” and “he made a mistake” depending upon the weather.
Edited by pablo on Wednesday 5th May 13:22
For example - if there have been or there are topics about the brilliant Jim Clark (for example) I wouldn't start writing on them arguing that he made a mistake at Hockenheim in 1968, that he wasn't a God blah blah blah...(I don't actually think that either!). It would be rude, ignorant and just crass.
For Eric Mc to do it on literally EVERY Senna topic is a concern, like something isn't wired-up right perhaps?
I'm not alone in holding Senna in high regard and always will, with his flaws and character traits too.
To continually speak ill of someone who died as the result of an accident is (at best) in poor taste.
Eric Mc - maybe you could take some time out from Pistonheads and contact the Senna Foundation and tell them your views on Senna? Ring his Sister there and tell her he wasn't a God? Perhaps you also deride the money he gave to charities before his death too?
Finally, you (Eric Mc) speak with so much authority about the details of how Senna's car crashed and what caused it to leave the road.
Couple of questions for you;
1 - do you have some unseen footage of the crash that most of the world hasn't seen?
2 - can you let me know how many other F1 cars/drivers have crashed at Imola at that corner in the dry as a result of 'driver error' and not a mechanical fault?
P.S - I'll answer a question you posed, which was..."Why are people so enthralled with his rather bonkers semi-mystic personality?"...my answer is "because he was totally fascinating, stood up for what he believed in AND inspired me to do things".
That is just my opinion, I can't speak for the millions of other people around the globe. He was the total opposite of the dullards then and now who do a lot of talking but achieve very little in their lives.
I hope that answers your question and look forward to your reply.
kiseca said:
I'm not sure what shenanigans you are referring to at Suzuka 1990. Pole position was in the same place it had been every year at Suzuka. Senna asked for it to be changed, after being disadvantaged by it in 1989 because it's off the racing line. They refused his request. I'm not sure what there is in there to feel "wronged" by unless Senna felt the FIA's job was to do what he tells them. I believe they did indeed move pole position on to the racing line the year after.
as Senna lost out at the start in both 88 & 89 he asked the stewards for it to be moved from the dirty side of the track & iirc & according to Ron this was agreed, Balestre then over-ruled themBlimeyCharlie said:
It is predictable that any topic about Senna will soon have Eric Mc's negative input. It is tedious and disrespectful.
For example - if there have been or there are topics about the brilliant Jim Clark (for example) I wouldn't start writing on them arguing that he made a mistake at Hockenheim in 1968, that he wasn't a God blah blah blah...(I don't actually think that either!). It would be rude, ignorant and just crass.
For Eric Mc to do it on literally EVERY Senna topic is a concern, like something isn't wired-up right perhaps?
I'm not alone in holding Senna in high regard and always will, with his flaws and character traits too.
To continually speak ill of someone who died as the result of an accident is (at best) in poor taste.
Eric Mc - maybe you could take some time out from Pistonheads and contact the Senna Foundation and tell them your views on Senna? Ring his Sister there and tell her he wasn't a God? Perhaps you also deride the money he gave to charities before his death too?
Finally, you (Eric Mc) speak with so much authority about the details of how Senna's car crashed and what caused it to leave the road.
Couple of questions for you;
1 - do you have some unseen footage of the crash that most of the world hasn't seen?
2 - can you let me know how many other F1 cars/drivers have crashed at Imola at that corner in the dry as a result of 'driver error' and not a mechanical fault?
P.S - I'll answer a question you posed, which was..."Why are people so enthralled with his rather bonkers semi-mystic personality?"...my answer is "because he was totally fascinating, stood up for what he believed in AND inspired me to do things".
That is just my opinion, I can't speak for the millions of other people around the globe. He was the total opposite of the dullards then and now who do a lot of talking but achieve very little in their lives.
I hope that answers your question and look forward to your reply.
I have no doubt he inspired many people. I've never disputed that.For example - if there have been or there are topics about the brilliant Jim Clark (for example) I wouldn't start writing on them arguing that he made a mistake at Hockenheim in 1968, that he wasn't a God blah blah blah...(I don't actually think that either!). It would be rude, ignorant and just crass.
For Eric Mc to do it on literally EVERY Senna topic is a concern, like something isn't wired-up right perhaps?
I'm not alone in holding Senna in high regard and always will, with his flaws and character traits too.
To continually speak ill of someone who died as the result of an accident is (at best) in poor taste.
Eric Mc - maybe you could take some time out from Pistonheads and contact the Senna Foundation and tell them your views on Senna? Ring his Sister there and tell her he wasn't a God? Perhaps you also deride the money he gave to charities before his death too?
Finally, you (Eric Mc) speak with so much authority about the details of how Senna's car crashed and what caused it to leave the road.
Couple of questions for you;
1 - do you have some unseen footage of the crash that most of the world hasn't seen?
2 - can you let me know how many other F1 cars/drivers have crashed at Imola at that corner in the dry as a result of 'driver error' and not a mechanical fault?
P.S - I'll answer a question you posed, which was..."Why are people so enthralled with his rather bonkers semi-mystic personality?"...my answer is "because he was totally fascinating, stood up for what he believed in AND inspired me to do things".
That is just my opinion, I can't speak for the millions of other people around the globe. He was the total opposite of the dullards then and now who do a lot of talking but achieve very little in their lives.
I hope that answers your question and look forward to your reply.
But I didn't like his attitude on track and in motorsport.
He certainly didn't inspire me.
And please do not suggest to me what I should do or not do regarding my involvement on PH.
the argument about whether the column broke pre-accident or whether Senna ran out of talent tells you more about those commenting rather than gleaning any useful information
personally i'd go with Hill & Schumacher's views ...that Senna took a different/ riskier/ faster line through Tamburello than anyone else & paid the price/ ran out of talent- but i'm not adverse to the view the column broke either (probably 70:30)
not that it matters- as it's not going to bring him back & doesn't alter or diminish my view that he was probably the most gifted driver ill ever see
personally i'd go with Hill & Schumacher's views ...that Senna took a different/ riskier/ faster line through Tamburello than anyone else & paid the price/ ran out of talent- but i'm not adverse to the view the column broke either (probably 70:30)
not that it matters- as it's not going to bring him back & doesn't alter or diminish my view that he was probably the most gifted driver ill ever see
One thing I can always guarantee is that when there is a discussion about Senna or even Schumacher, there will be a majority who worship the men and a small number who do not, and actually think they are a little bit not over rated but put on a pedestal that their talent does not deserve.
And if you state this, there will usually be people calling you out for it, and using all sorts of rather unsavoury words against you, as has happened to me and Eric in this thread.
Prost does not get into this as he was not exciting, not flamboyant, he was studious, political to some degree. But what a lot of people do not know, is he fell foul of the press and politics as many times as he won.
The friendship these two had in the end was a massive bonus for Alain, it made everything alright, he understood it ALL. And that is what matters. At the time the hatred was real, it was huge and it was the biggest thing in the sport, add in stuff like Mansell, Piquet, Schumacher on the scene, the tech, the cars and it is no wonder that despite the fact the racing was not always great, that era is always quoted as the best
And if you state this, there will usually be people calling you out for it, and using all sorts of rather unsavoury words against you, as has happened to me and Eric in this thread.
Prost does not get into this as he was not exciting, not flamboyant, he was studious, political to some degree. But what a lot of people do not know, is he fell foul of the press and politics as many times as he won.
The friendship these two had in the end was a massive bonus for Alain, it made everything alright, he understood it ALL. And that is what matters. At the time the hatred was real, it was huge and it was the biggest thing in the sport, add in stuff like Mansell, Piquet, Schumacher on the scene, the tech, the cars and it is no wonder that despite the fact the racing was not always great, that era is always quoted as the best
I was reluctant to contribute to this thread because it is about remembering a great talent on the anniversary of his death, so I've tried to be careful while responding and trying to remain respectful to his memory, and will continue to do so in this thread.
I agree that Schumacher and Senna divide opinion, I think that is actually true for most drivers of note, but these two can be particularly divisive.
From me, there were parts to Senna's character that made him hard for me to like, I was never a big fan of his, but I do think his talent is beyond dispute and he could well be the fastest driver I'll ever see in Formula 1. His ability to find speed in a car, to read the road and conditions, and just that fascinating ability he seemed to have to focus in a way that no other drivers seemed to do, or at least do so obviously. He was king of the thousand yard stare in a field full of experts.
A flawed, fascinating character who changed the sport forever.
I agree that Schumacher and Senna divide opinion, I think that is actually true for most drivers of note, but these two can be particularly divisive.
From me, there were parts to Senna's character that made him hard for me to like, I was never a big fan of his, but I do think his talent is beyond dispute and he could well be the fastest driver I'll ever see in Formula 1. His ability to find speed in a car, to read the road and conditions, and just that fascinating ability he seemed to have to focus in a way that no other drivers seemed to do, or at least do so obviously. He was king of the thousand yard stare in a field full of experts.
A flawed, fascinating character who changed the sport forever.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff