Senna vs Brundle
Discussion
I'm currently reading Senna's biography by Tom Rubython at the moment. It's a thick book, to say the least and will take me some time to get through 
What has struck me so far, is how good Martin Brundle was racing against Senna before they both got into F1. He was the only one who could give Senna a run for his money, and yet, I had him down as a bit of loser!
What went wrong in F1? It seems Senna went from strengh to strengh, while Brundle's career just went down hill.
Was it all to do with just bad luck?
What has struck me so far, is how good Martin Brundle was racing against Senna before they both got into F1. He was the only one who could give Senna a run for his money, and yet, I had him down as a bit of loser!
What went wrong in F1? It seems Senna went from strengh to strengh, while Brundle's career just went down hill.
Was it all to do with just bad luck?
IINM, Brundle has acknowledged that whilst he and Senna were closely matched in their earlier driving days, Senna had that extra nth degree when it came to talent.
Brundle was a very under-rated driver and never really got the breaks he deserved, having a tendency to be with teams when they were in a 'low' spell (Williams, McLaren)
Brundle was a very under-rated driver and never really got the breaks he deserved, having a tendency to be with teams when they were in a 'low' spell (Williams, McLaren)
sjtscott said:
Muzzer said:
Brundle was a very under-rated driver and never really got the breaks he deserved, having a tendency to be with teams when they were in a 'low' spell (Williams, McLaren)
Just look at what a good job he did as Schumacher seniors team mate at Benetton in 1992!I often think that a F1 drivers career is determined in their first few seasons. There are very few drivers who don't get the right breaks early on but then make the grade as a "quality" driver. It might be that F1 talent spotters are better than I give them credit for but I think it's something psychological and to do with a driver's belief in themselves. I always rated Brundle as a better driver than his F1 results showed, he certainly did the business in sports cars. Another driver was Coulthard, he was on a par with Hakinnen early in Hakinnen's spell at McLaren and had the edge over him on results. But he was told to move over for Hakkinen on a couple of occasions. Hakkinen never looked back as far as results went but Coulthard never quite made it. Self belief.
Self Belief and oppurtunity...Johnny Herbert , as soon as he was let of the leash he won (always Schumys No2)in the Benneton car with none of the special bits his team "mate" was privvy to. Interesting to note that Senna wouldn,t have Derek Warwick as a team mate at Lotus , another Brit who was good enough but not given the same oppurunities.
Edited by RedexR on Tuesday 18th March 20:18
dxb335d said:
Very good book, finished it a few months back. Very biased with some views though.
Brundle wasnt really that close to senna, i think senna won a straight 9 wins in f3, quite a few more than brundle.
Carlos
It was not as simple as that, I don't think. There were 2 F3 champiionships in those days IIRC, the Vandervell and the BP. Senna won one & Brundle the other, Brundle winning more races in the second half of the season & seriously rattling Senna.Brundle wasnt really that close to senna, i think senna won a straight 9 wins in f3, quite a few more than brundle.
Carlos
Brundle will acknowledge that Senna was much better but equally Brundle was far better than his results showed. He was never in the right team at the right time - Mclaren with Peugot engines, for eg. He also drove for Zakspeed & spent one year sharing a car with Ligier. And the effect of his first year crash in a Tyrrell (Detroit?) on his ankles meant that he forever suffered under braking. He still can't run now.
I also read somewhere that Brundle was 15 mins away from getting the Williams drive that Hill finally got as the Williams #2. Brundle thought that he'd been promised the drive and was waiting for confirmation. The test team boss changed Franks mind at the last minute - Hill was #2 to Senna and took over the team leadership on Sennas death, to subsequentley become World Champion. Brundle must often wonder, "what if", because in my (admitedly worthless) opinion he was a better driver than Hill!!
Brundle gave Senna a good run in F3, but when they stepped up to F1 it was a totally different ball game. My opinion is that we saw all that both were capable of - Senna was truly gifted whereas Brundle had got as far as he was ever going to go. I certainly don't agree that he was as good as Hill, he certainly never showed the speed or application needed to indulge in a true F1 title fight.
There is so much more to do with the car than the driver in the days when Senna was racing, and more so now. Does anyone think that Hamilton would have shone so brightly had he been in a Super Aguri? He is one of the most talented drivers in one of the best cars and yes they can get extra speed out of mediocre cars that lesser drivers cannot, but when it comes down to it the car is 80% of the story. That is why in the lesser formulas the racing is much closer and the driver skill is amplified.
Further on in the book Brundle addresses this question - he says that in addition to not having the same "x-factor", every Monday morning whilst Senna was beginning another week's testing, he was putting on his suit and driving into work at the car dealership.
His comments are extremely candid and self effacing and make me warm to the guy even more.
dumbfunk
His comments are extremely candid and self effacing and make me warm to the guy even more.
dumbfunk
I have read a few books on Senna, and you will find that brundle used a different engine builder to Senna (same engine),and Senna could not understand how Brundle could beat him, but then Senna changed to the same builder, and from then on Brundle never beat him again.
Not sure if this is mentioned in the book referred to.
Tony
Not sure if this is mentioned in the book referred to.
Tony
heebeegeetee said:
Brundle gave Senna a good run in F3, but when they stepped up to F1 it was a totally different ball game. My opinion is that we saw all that both were capable of - Senna was truly gifted whereas Brundle had got as far as he was ever going to go. I certainly don't agree that he was as good as Hill, he certainly never showed the speed or application needed to indulge in a true F1 title fight.
Hill never showed spped or application when he was struggling in a Brabham, it was only when he got his chance as a Williams test driver that he was able to show a better performance level. As I said earlier, IMO, Brundle was never given a title winning car. Nevertheless, whilst Schumacher outqualified him in their year at Benneton, Brundle scored more points than him in the second half of the season and therefore showed up pretty well. I am not saying that he was Senna or Schumacher's euivelant, because he wasn't, and he would agree with that, but I do think that he was a better racer than his career points total showed, and better than some of the people who actually scored more points than him.I think that at any one time half of the field could be world championship winners if they were in the right car with the right team mate(not as good as them or a clear number 2), and a lot of drivers are then seen 'not to reach thier true or promised potential'. some are more obvious than others.
regarding Brundle, i remember him getting a pig of a Mclaren in to 2nd place and being really pleased with himself, when interviewed he was bubbling with joy and satisfaction of a job well done, Ron Dennis was next to him during the interview, his reaction was "2nd is the first of the losers", Martin looked crest fallen!! I believe it was the car Mansell couldn't fit into!
regarding Brundle, i remember him getting a pig of a Mclaren in to 2nd place and being really pleased with himself, when interviewed he was bubbling with joy and satisfaction of a job well done, Ron Dennis was next to him during the interview, his reaction was "2nd is the first of the losers", Martin looked crest fallen!! I believe it was the car Mansell couldn't fit into!
andy97 said:
It was not as simple as that, I don't think. There were 2 F3 champiionships in those days IIRC, the Vandervell and the BP. Senna won one & Brundle the other, Brundle winning more races in the second half of the season & seriously rattling Senna.
A three British F3 championships had merged by 1983, with Senna winning the single Marlboro British F3 Championship.profstoff said:
Another driver was Coulthard, he was on a par with Hakinnen early in Hakinnen's spell at McLaren and had the edge over him on results. But he was told to move over for Hakkinen on a couple of occasions. Hakkinen never looked back as far as results went but Coulthard never quite made it. Self belief.
Points-wise, Coulthard is the 4th most successful driver ever. I know he's been in F1 since 1927 but still a statistic that surprises me.andy97 said:
Hill never showed spped or application when he was struggling in a Brabham, it was only when he got his chance as a Williams test driver that he was able to show a better performance level.
So how did Hill get the Williams drive? He certainly couldn't buy it.I remember Hill leading an F3000 race at Silverstone, in a plain white car. He had no money and no sponsorship. If you're saying he had no speed and no application either, then his rise to world championship is indeed a mystery.
The first single-seater race I ever saw was F3 at Donington, Senna and Brundle swapped places lap after lap and I have rarely seen such a closely matched race. I think Brundle was good back then, but UK drivers found it harder to get the right backing to get into the right teams, so Senna went on to fame and glory.
Brundle turned into a bit of a joke, I remember him turning up somewhere I was working, in his helicopter, and strutting around like he was really important, I never really saw it myself. But once upon a time, he was pretty fast.
Brundle turned into a bit of a joke, I remember him turning up somewhere I was working, in his helicopter, and strutting around like he was really important, I never really saw it myself. But once upon a time, he was pretty fast.
Tony 1234 said:
I have read a few books on Senna, and you will find that brundle used a different engine builder to Senna (same engine),and Senna could not understand how Brundle could beat him, but then Senna changed to the same builder, and from then on Brundle never beat him again.
Not sure if this is mentioned in the book referred to.
Tony
Yyes Tony it is mentioned in the book, and your 100% correct!Not sure if this is mentioned in the book referred to.
Tony
SamHH said:
andy97 said:
It was not as simple as that, I don't think. There were 2 F3 champiionships in those days IIRC, the Vandervell and the BP. Senna won one & Brundle the other, Brundle winning more races in the second half of the season & seriously rattling Senna.
A three British F3 championships had merged by 1983, with Senna winning the single Marlboro British F3 Championship.If you click the link below you can download the 2008 British F3 Media Guide, which lists the championship winning drivers from 1964 to 2007 on page 31 (1.8Mb PDF File).
http://www.britishf3international.com/download.php...
As for Hill, most people reckon that he won the F1 title in 1996 because he was in a Williams. For me the defining moment in Hill's career was in the 1997 Hungarian GP when he so nearly won in the Arrows-Yamaha, a car that should not have been anywhere near the front on any track. The wins for Jordan were also pretty special as well.
Back on topic - 1983 was a vintage year for British F3, just hope we get another one this season.
Jeff
Edited by macsport on Wednesday 19th March 18:59
Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff