Did Schumacher get aggressive because of Senna?

[Lotus102]

I don't know. I think it's actually pretty rare for a genuinely dirty driver to turn up, and when they do, everyone thinks they've changed the sport. Because Senna and Schumacher overlapped, people do like to draw a comparison. I don't think it's necessarily fair. The fact is that that sort of thing used to be a lot more tolerated than it is now. Remember James Hunt's commentary when Prost collided with Senna at the 1989 Japanese GP? Hunt immediately called that it was deliberate and moreover that under the rules it was totally legitimate. Hunt 'The Shunt' was well used to a bit of 'robust' driving, after all.

But this was what Stirling Moss had to say about Giuseppe Farina, the 1950 World Champion:

"On the track, though, Farina was a b______d, completely ruthless — dangerous. And the worst of it was that he'd behave exactly the same way with an inexperienced guy. If he was lapping you, boy, you'd better make sure you didn't get in his way — he'd just push you off the road." Moss wasn't exaggerating. In the 1936 Deauville GP Farina did exactly that to Marcel Lehoux, resulting in Lehoux's death.

I remember everyone clutching their handbags about Senna's move on Prost at the 1988 Portuguese GP, but looking at it now, I honestly can't see what the fuss is about. Prost always had room. He kept his foot in and Senna straightened his line. Compare it with Schumacher's move on Barrichello at Hungary in 2010, where he actually put Rubens in the position of driving directly at an end-on concrete wall... To my mind, that move was so ludicrous, so potentially lethal that it should have resulted in an instant lifetime ban.

But Senna? Even the 1990 Japanese GP is exaggerated. A lot of the fuss about that is because Senna implied he would not back down if Prost failed to give him room - but he'd said exactly the same thing to Mansell at an earlier race, and hadn't crashed. It was just part of how he operated - if you could intimidate a driver into moving over for you before you even got into the car, then you'd already won. And this, I think, is the distinction. Senna, rather like Max Verstappen, put rivals in the position where they could give up the place or risk a crash. Schumacher didn't give them the choice, he just drove into them. He didn't learn that from Senna. Maybe from Prost...

[sosic2121]

Or maybe being given the 94 title after deliberately driving in to Hill made him realise he could get away with stuff so he kept doing it?

You mean title nearly being taken away made him aggressive?

[ENGINE TUNER]

I remember everyone clutching their handbags about Senna's move on Prost at the 1988 Portuguese GP, but looking at it now, I honestly can't see what the fuss is about. Prost always had room. He kept his foot in and Senna straightened his line. Compare it with Schumacher's move on Barrichello at Hungary in 2010, where he actually put Rubens in the position of driving directly at an end-on concrete wall... To my mind, that move was so ludicrous, so potentially lethal that it should have resulted in an instant lifetime ban.

What prost did in one of the aborted starts at Estoril 88 was far more dangerous than Senna's defense later on in that race. If there was any dirty driver in F1 at that time it was prost, both on track and off.

[Jolle]

I don't think Schumacher was how he drove because of Senna. Schumacher was Schumacher because of Schumacher. There is also some big difference. Senna's ruthlessness "would be up to you if we had a crash" style driving was in the offense, overtaking other drivers with sometimes to much risk, forcing his way trough. Schumacher on the other hand (and in some cases Rosberg and Vettel) have their dangerous maneuvers on the defense. Also a slight difference between The Germans and someone like Verstappen, Schumacher, Vettel and Rosberg were really dirty, driving you off track, into a wall or just crashed into you. Someone like Verstappen or Hamilton have more an Senna approach, but then on defending, you have to do that extra to overtake them, giving you very small margins.

[El Scorchio]

I don't know. I think it's actually pretty rare for a genuinely dirty driver to turn up, and when they do, everyone thinks they've changed the sport. Because Senna and Schumacher overlapped, people do like to draw a comparison. I don't think it's necessarily fair. The fact is that that sort of thing used to be a lot more tolerated than it is now. Remember James Hunt's commentary when Prost collided with Senna at the 1989 Japanese GP? Hunt immediately called that it was deliberate and moreover that under the rules it was totally legitimate. Hunt 'The Shunt' was well used to a bit of 'robust' driving, after all.

But this was what Stirling Moss had to say about Giuseppe Farina, the 1950 World Champion:

"On the track, though, Farina was a b______d, completely ruthless — dangerous. And the worst of it was that he'd behave exactly the same way with an inexperienced guy. If he was lapping you, boy, you'd better make sure you didn't get in his way — he'd just push you off the road." Moss wasn't exaggerating. In the 1936 Deauville GP Farina did exactly that to Marcel Lehoux, resulting in Lehoux's death.

I remember everyone clutching their handbags about Senna's move on Prost at the 1988 Portuguese GP, but looking at it now, I honestly can't see what the fuss is about. Prost always had room. He kept his foot in and Senna straightened his line. Compare it with Schumacher's move on Barrichello at Hungary in 2010, where he actually put Rubens in the position of driving directly at an end-on concrete wall... To my mind, that move was so ludicrous, so potentially lethal that it should have resulted in an instant lifetime ban.

But Senna? Even the 1990 Japanese GP is exaggerated. A lot of the fuss about that is because Senna implied he would not back down if Prost failed to give him room - but he'd said exactly the same thing to Mansell at an earlier race, and hadn't crashed. It was just part of how he operated - if you could intimidate a driver into moving over for you before you even got into the car, then you'd already won. And this, I think, is the distinction. Senna, rather like Max Verstappen, put rivals in the position where they could give up the place or risk a crash. Schumacher didn't give them the choice, he just drove into them. He didn't learn that from Senna. Maybe from Prost...

Agree with that. I don't think you'd have seen Senna do to Villeneuve what Schumacher did in Jerez 1997, in that situation.

[El Scorchio]

Or maybe being given the 94 title after deliberately driving in to Hill made him realise he could get away with stuff so he kept doing it?

You mean title nearly being taken away made him aggressive?

I think he means Schumacher got no punishment for driving into Hill, so carried on employing similar tactics when he needed to on the assumption that IF there was a penalty, it would still be worth it.

[sosic2121]

Or maybe being given the 94 title after deliberately driving in to Hill made him realise he could get away with stuff so he kept doing it?

You mean title nearly being taken away made him aggressive?

I think he means Schumacher got no punishment for driving into Hill, so carried on employing similar tactics when he needed to on the assumption that IF there was a penalty, it would still be worth it.

I thought he might be saying how Schumacher dominated entire season, but was disqualified from big portion of it, so in order to win what he should he made that "Senna" move.

[Wass85]

There was certainly no love lost between Senna and Schumacher. Both knew how great the other driver was and both were born to win.

1994 is a massive what if, it would have been an epic season had we not lost Senna. Who would have won who knows, Senna had the qualifying speed and Schumacher brought that relentless race pace.

[Just_a_fan]

You mean title nearly being taken away made him aggressive?

I think he means Schumacher got no punishment for driving into Hill, so carried on employing similar tactics when he needed to on the assumption that IF there was a penalty, it would still be worth it.

I thought he might be saying how Schumacher dominated entire season, but was disqualified from big portion of it, so in order to win what he should he made that "Senna" move.

He was disqualified for breaking the rules. That's his problem, no one elses. If he hadn't been a naughty boy, he'd have been high and dry the winner. But he didn't so, when finally put under pressure he resorted to dirty tricks - crashing in to Hill. Schumacher's bad record for this sort of behaviour is why he'll never be my GOAT.

[sosic2121]

I think he means Schumacher got no punishment for driving into Hill, so carried on employing similar tactics when he needed to on the assumption that IF there was a penalty, it would still be worth it.

I thought he might be saying how Schumacher dominated entire season, but was disqualified from big portion of it, so in order to win what he should he made that "Senna" move.

He was disqualified for breaking the rules. That's his problem, no one elses. If he hadn't been a naughty boy, he'd have been high and dry the winner. But he didn't so, when finally put under pressure he resorted to dirty tricks - crashing in to Hill. Schumacher's bad record for this sort of behaviour is why he'll never be my GOAT.

I guess then 3 race disqualification is appropriate penalty for taking the lead on parade lap.

[Jolle]

I thought he might be saying how Schumacher dominated entire season, but was disqualified from big portion of it, so in order to win what he should he made that "Senna" move.

He was disqualified for breaking the rules. That's his problem, no one elses. If he hadn't been a naughty boy, he'd have been high and dry the winner. But he didn't so, when finally put under pressure he resorted to dirty tricks - crashing in to Hill. Schumacher's bad record for this sort of behaviour is why he'll never be my GOAT.

I guess then 3 race disqualification is appropriate penalty for taking the lead on parade lap.

One, the other two were for ignoring a black flag. It was one of the moments where Briatore/Schumacher decided that rules didn’t apply to them.

[strad]

Prost intentionally crashed into Senna in Japan 89

Prost did not intentionally crash into Senna. He had allowed Senna to bully his way past all season and told Ron and Senna that he would not yield again. Senna made yet another attempt to dive inside and force his way past and Prost refused to be bullied.
I don't have a dog in the fight but those are the facts.

[Andres125sx]

I think it´s natural evolution. When 50 years ago there were fatal accidents so frequently, any F1 driver had to be simply crazy to drive too aggressive. No sane person will be agressive when he´s lived some workmate death that close

When 30-40 years ago fatal accidents stop being that frequent, agresiveness started raising because they felt safer, death was not that close.

When 20-30 years ago fatal accidents didn´t happen anymore in normal circumstances (apart from a lorry on a test track, or a crane on a runoff area), agresiveness reached maximum because of obvious reasons.

We humans need first hand experience to learn, if we don´t see it first hand we will never learn it same way. But that´s not a bad thing, it´s adaptation to our environement


Verstappen is a good example, he reached F1 so young on a very safe era he simply can´t see the danger because he´s never seen a fatal accident, so he´s very very agressive. Don´t take me wrong, I´m not criticizing him, that´s perfectly normal. Older people who has seen some death will think different, but because of the same, even if only as a viewer watching some F1 driver death is too impressive to be ignored. But like it or not nowadays F1 cars are so safe they can be that agressive without major risks. Ruining some other driver race is a different matter, and that´s where FIA should put the limits, but safety wise there´s no reason to stop agressive drivers, at least while they don´t go too far... what´s too far? who knows

[Just_a_fan]

He was disqualified for breaking the rules. That's his problem, no one elses. If he hadn't been a naughty boy, he'd have been high and dry the winner. But he didn't so, when finally put under pressure he resorted to dirty tricks - crashing in to Hill. Schumacher's bad record for this sort of behaviour is why he'll never be my GOAT.

I guess then 3 race disqualification is appropriate penalty for taking the lead on parade lap.

One, the other two were for ignoring a black flag. It was one of the moments where Briatore/Schumacher decided that rules didn’t apply to them.

Exactly. Along with the whole "oh, that Traction Control? No, that's not active, honest".

[ENGINE TUNER]

I think he means Schumacher got no punishment for driving into Hill, so carried on employing similar tactics when he needed to on the assumption that IF there was a penalty, it would still be worth it.

I thought he might be saying how Schumacher dominated entire season, but was disqualified from big portion of it, so in order to win what he should he made that "Senna" move.

He was disqualified for breaking the rules. That's his problem, no one elses. If he hadn't been a naughty boy, he'd have been high and dry the winner. But he didn't so, when finally put under pressure he resorted to dirty tricks - crashing in to Hill. Schumacher's bad record for this sort of behaviour is why he'll never be my GOAT.

Agreed, except that they weren't dq'd for running traction control when they clearly were in 94.