Senna feature on Top Gear tonight

FrostyJack

Did he not also say the illegal Benetton (driven by MS) might be a factor, taking into account everything, inc Sennas state of mind.

Thats my point . . .

Yes but other factors I would guess were more in his mind. You can only race what's infront of you, did Schumacher go around in a daze risking death every time he raced a Adrian Newey designed car because they had an unfair advantage? The Gravity of Jupiter affects my drive to work every day but if I have an accident I would say it was a factor? If he was that easily rattled that he crashed his car because he thought rivals were cheating then he wasn't the driver we all thought he was. The previous year he had traction control when Schumacher didn't I don't remember any deaths as a result.

Frank Bullitt

Kersh wrote: »

Ridicule away, makes no odds to my opinion. Like I said, I have carefully looked at everything, and this is what makes sense to me, I have aportioned blame to the various factors and it sits well with me. Some people on here probably havent even read up on everything surrounding the accident.

I think the issue here is that you have read into it too much.

samsemtex

This is what gets me about Senna, I know he was good but the fawning over him cause he is dead annoys me so much. Listen to that clown Brundle speaking in the Top Gear segment

" He would often put you in a position where you were going to have an accident and left the decission up to you whether you had that accident or not" "phycologigaly you were burried and finished, he would then know that every time he showed you a wheel you would jump out of the way"

and then listen to him talk about Schumacher in Canada after the clash with Kubica

"It was a shocking performance from Michael Schumacher today, He lacked judgement today and that's the worst Grand Prix I've ever seen him drive in his career, absolutely.

"Frankly, if he was a new boy, we'd have been saying, 'You know what? He's not ready for Formula 1, he's not good enough for Formula 1'…because it was really clumsy, unacceptable moves - what's the point in risking your car? The guy's come up the inside of you - Kubica had the turn-in point to the corner - and Michael just won't give in

Now is it just me or is Brundle basically saying that Senna was a psychological mastermind for not giving in yet Schumacher isn't ready for F1 for doing the exact same thing? from what i can see that is an IDENTICAL situation.

Its the exact same when he was talking about Senna driving prost off the road. He just says "thats just Ayrton's will to win", yet when Schumacher tried to ram Villeneuve off in a move that put no ones life in danger he talks about how it has tainted Schumachers legacy so much. Its one of the reasons i have next to no respect for Brundle but he's not the only one who comes out with all this hyperbole about Senna.

When Schumacher retired as well Brundle kept going on about how he hardly ever overtook anyone and how this was a weak point (when in fact Michael is a very good passer when he actually has to). Yet, I have seen very, very few clips of Senna pulling off overtaking maneuvers and even fewer of them were anything to write home about. Its like everything Schumacher gets criticized for is what Senna gets praised for.

De Hipster

samsemtex wrote: »

This is what gets me about Senna, I know he was good but the fawning over him cause he is dead annoys me so much. Listen to that clown Brundle speaking in the Top Gear segment



and then listen to him talk about Schumacher in Canada after the clash with Kubica



Now is it just me or is Brundle basically saying that Senna was a psychological mastermind for not giving in yet Schumacher isn't ready for F1 for doing the exact same thing? from what i can see that is an IDENTICAL situation.

Its the exact same when he was talking about Senna driving prost off the road. He just says "thats just Ayrton's will to win", yet when Schumacher tried to ram Villeneuve off in a move that put no ones life in danger he talks about how it has tainted Schumachers legacy so much. Its one of the reasons i have next to no respect for Brundle but he's not the only one who comes out with all this hyperbole about Senna.

Senna was a master, I have no doubt about the calibre & class of a driver he was...saying that his aggression levels have rarely been matched since & on attempts many drivers have come in for huge criticism including Schumacher and more recently Hamilton among others.

However I find Brundle is a very emotive F1 commentator and his opinions are regularly unbalanced demonstrating favour of one driver over another rather than presenting a balanced argument with even analysis for all.

losthorizon

De Hipster wrote: »

However I find Brundle is a very emotive F1 commentator and his opinions are regularly unbalanced demonstrating favour of one driver over another rather than presenting a balanced argument with even analysis for all.

Well Said.... it comes from racing against people hes now commentating on, i think. Although only Scumi (who he hates and who hates him in return) and Barichello must still be driving at this stage.

I always get the feeling as well that he doesn't get on with Jonathan Legard.

G-Money

losthorizon wrote: »

Well Said.... it comes from racing against people hes now commentating on, i think. Although only Scumi (who he hates and who hates him in return) and Barichello must still be driving at this stage.

I always get the feeling as well that he doesn't get on with Jonathan Legard.

Legard did my head in on Sunday. He was asking Brundle a question and when Brundle tried to answer, he kept butting in and it took Brundle about 3 attempts to answer it.

hotwhiskey

Only for the RED BUTTON to change the commentary to Radio 5 Live my head would be gone!

Sorry form going away from the Senna issue!

thegoth

The RedBull cars at the moment are illegal to everyone that looks at the wing flex, yet the FIA cannot prove they are illegal, so they are legal.

Therefore, if a redbull car, being driven by Webber is involved in a crash that kills Alonso while fighting for the lead, is this Webbers fault ?

vincenzolorenzo

thegoth wrote: »

The RedBull cars at the moment are illegal to everyone that looks at the wing flex, yet the FIA cannot prove they are illegal, so they are legal.

Rubbish. The rule says the wings musn't deflect and have a test to load the wings to check rigidity. The cars have to pass scrutineering and do so no bother, hence they are legal. This is just sour grapes from other teams that didn't cop onto the potential loophole in the rules. This is what F1 is all about and every single year various different teams will find a loophole and exploit it. Its up to other teams to cotton on and do likewise if it leads to a performance advantage.

thegoth wrote: »

Therefore, if a redbull car, being driven by Webber is involved in a crash that kills Alonso while fighting for the lead, is this Webbers fault ?

What has this got to do with the front wing of a car?

thegoth

vincenzolorenzo, I agree with you. This is the reaction I wanted.

How is there a difference between Webber, driving a car that every other team in the pit lane is calling illegal, but the FIA say is legal, being involved in a crash with Alonso while fighting for the lead and Schmucaher driving a car that every other team in the pit lane is calling illegal, but the FIA say is legal, being behine a crash Senna had while fighting for the lead ?

Someone here is saying that Schmuacher has to carry some blame for Sennas death. If thats the case, the in the above situation, so would Webber.

Personally, my opinion is that a driver drives the car the team give him to the best of his ability. Its up to the team to worry about if the car is legal or not

vincenzolorenzo

That was an opinion put forward by Kersh. He did a good job laying out his argument for blaming schumacher for senna's death but i think the whole thing was absolute rubbish and so too did quite a few other posters but he's entitled to his opinion.

I would agree with you goth, the drivers job is to drive the car, the team are there to build it and gain competitive advantage anywhere they can. If that means discovering a loophole in the rules and going for it then I applaud them for it and the other teams should concentrate their efforts on catching up

thegoth

I agree with you totally. For the record I have €20 on Vettel at 4/1. Hot him at the in Feb. So that wing can flex away for all I care :-)

Kersh

He did a good job laying out his argument for partially blaming schumacher for senna's death

FYP :P

Partially, as in exactly like Pironi played a part in Gilles Villeneuve death . . . even though it was Jochen Mass that he collided with. Pironi is always mentioned in the run up to Gilles death . . always, yet He had nothing to with the accident Gilles had that day.

Another example would be how Prost had a huge part to play in Senna crashing in Monaco 88 . . Prost pumped in quick laps 45s behind Senna, Senna paniced and crashed.

A lot of posters on here seem to be under the inpression racing drivers are some sort of solid superhuman 'nothing bothers me' superheroes, when the fact is they need constant reassurance, careful handling etc to extract any performance from them. They are only human, and very soft ones at that, which is why the 2 cases above are seen the way that they are.

If that means discovering a loophole in the rules and going for it then I applaud them for it and the other teams should concentrate their efforts on catching up

Flexi wings are a loophole, but if Mclaren rolled out in Spa with traction control, and the system was found on the car (albeit not in use) we would see headlines for weeks. Thats exactly what happened in 94 on the Benetton. You are comparing apples with oranges in comparing a loophole with a banned system.

SouperComputer

thegoth wrote:

Personally, my opinion is that a driver drives the car the team give him to the best of his ability. Its up to the team to worry about if the car is legal or not

The driver should worry, becuase if the car is illegal the driver also suffers a penalty. That and an extra pair of eyes is rarely a bad thing. Not to mention it's his/her neck on the line when they hit the track. My philosophy has always been "trust, but verify" and theres been a few occasions where I'm glad I did.

It makes me chuckle when somebody professes that the '94 Benneton wasn't bent.

WRT Senna's death, have a wander around here, some interesting stuff, covers some aspects of the trial in Italy: http://www.ayrton-senna.com/s-files/index.html

politicsdude

thegoth wrote: »

The RedBull cars at the moment are illegal to everyone that looks at the wing flex, yet the FIA cannot prove they are illegal, so they are legal.

Therefore, if a redbull car, being driven by Webber is involved in a crash that kills Alonso while fighting for the lead, is this Webbers fault ?

Illegal or not Red bull would be running away with the title if they had decent drivers I've no time for webber or Vettel, if Hamilton was in a red bull the championship would be over by now