sixrosberg
Region: CA
Friday 26 June 2026 20:13:52 GMT
4257
204
30
35
Music
Download
Comments
Brian🕯️ :
Schumi would have wiped the floor with Senna, and the Senna myth would be less than Fangio or Clark's. Is Senna probably the fastest? Yes, but he had many weaknesses. Fast, yes, but brainless. Schumacher is a much better driver.
2026-06-27 04:39:41
19
ivan :
Jean Todt said in 1 of his interviews that Senna wanted to race for Ferrari in 1994 but he already had contract with Williams so he wanted to race with ferrari at 1995
2026-06-27 09:32:05
3
elplan14 :
msc would wipe him in similar cars but yeah the williams were better so hes taking it
2026-06-26 20:44:31
2
𝙞𝙗𝙡𝙖𝙢𝙚𝙘𝙖𝙧𝙡𝙤𝙨 :
he would've retired like Vettel tbh,fast but not in the race
2026-06-27 04:58:14
2
Sebfan420 :
Elite display of wheel knowledge gungo, Senna is overrated asf
2026-06-27 03:22:34
1
Sebastian :
Well but Hill Managed to challenge for the title in 94. So senna should be able to win it imo
2026-06-26 22:14:11
6
89156. :
for me senna is 5 time champ
2026-07-10 03:46:13
0
Zedtish :
Msc only won 95 cuz hill was dogshit 😭 senna would win but itd prolly be close
2026-06-26 23:54:27
3
ori 🕵️♂️ :
if senna hadn’t passed in San Marino he’d have need miracles to catch up to Schumachers points, Damon had more points than senna before San Marino and didn’t even equal Schumachers points going into Australia
2026-06-27 14:22:18
1
1ettel :
wwww elite knowledge
2026-06-26 20:17:41
1
⋆｡°✩ 𝑷𝒆𝒅𝒊𝒇𝒆 ✩°｡⋆ :
With Senna present, Schumacher would have been banned from 2 Races and would have received 2 DSQs anyway. DH was underperforming that Williams in a bizarre way, it's no wonder he had fewer poles positions than Dead Senna. In that Williams, Ayrton achieved 3 pole positions out of 3, and put 1.6 seconds between himself and Hill in Brazil, in the same car. 1995 It's debatable, but Benetton was better. Senna would probably have lost to Schumacher, but he would have been more of a challenge than Damon Hill. 96-97 it's obvious he would have won, there's no way to deny it. The Williams cars were dominant enough to make terrible drivers like Damon Hill and Jacques champions. Damon Hill is arguably the worst F1 champion in history. And why would going to Ferrari ruin his career? Senna would have had a great chance of winning in 1999, Mika Häkkinen made several mistakes that year, he only became champion because Schumacher broke his leg And because he was competing with Irvine, who had terrible treatment as a second driver until Schumacher's accident. Senna would probably have retired as a 5-6-time champion at least, and who knows, maybe even with 7 if he had gone to Ferrari.
2026-06-27 17:45:13
0
𝐌𝐔𝐑𝐈𝐋𝐎 :
1994-1995: MSC (1994 being 111-102 in my simulations) 1996-1997: Senna (Ayrton would retire after that, if not, he would be raped by Hakkinen and Schumacher) If Schumacher moves to Williams in 1996 and not Ferrari, he would won 1996-1997 too against Senna on Williams or another team, if Senna was in Ferrari he would probably never win more than 5 wins (1995-1997), the main reason why Ferrari become great is the big 3, Ross Brawn, MSC and Jean todt, and without the biggest reason (MSC) Ferrari would never be great like he was, would never get his magnificent evolution, Michael Schumacher is the concept of leadership, Senna not, Schumacher was willing to rebuild Ferrari, Senna never had the patience of MSC, Senna always cried when he doesn't have the best car, the main fact was in 1992 when he made HONDA left McLaren, so If MSC was the teammate of Senna, Ayrton would never be champion again, If MSC goes to Ferrari like in RL, Ayrton could be champion 1996-1997, and i actually dont think Hill was bad, Michael in 1997 could be a challenge in some races, Ayrton has 60% of winning 97 since he would be facing prime schumacher and a young msc already beated him in some years ago
2026-06-29 02:54:58
1
⛱️ :
🥀
2026-06-27 06:53:30
0
To see more videos from user @sixrosberg, please go to the Tikwm
homepage.
