Ranking all of Ayrton Senna's Formula 1 cars 

@Jennifer Maple Last manual trans AND last V12 to win a championship and IMO along with the 412T1/2 the best sounding engine of all time. Berger did win a race. The car had stiff competition in the FW14 which later became the FW15C, probably the most technologically advanced car in racing ever vs its competition. The MP4/6, V12, manual trans, incredible sound and driven to dominance by Senna. It I could drive any car in motorsport history it would be #1

You'r nosense

@Jennifer Maple Ok fine if you consider Bergers win as Sennas then Senna had 8 wins, tying the MP4/6 with the MP4/4 as the car with the most wins for Senna

@3213232 1231223 and what does that have to do with anything we are discussing?

@@K20EF8 @jennifer. As sorry as I am:But this is womens knowledge! 😜

And people still says he would win WDC in 1994. How can?

So bad he got pole on every race that year lol. Not bad, but unstable, is the right word to use. Very understandable cause the FIA banned all the "driving aids" ( traction control, active suspension )on that season which Williams were so good at. It's the FIA who killed Senna with their bogus technical changes, Williams infact get their shit later on that season and still won constructor lmao...

@@ChuckN516 Senna was better than Schumacher in 1994

@@edgarpanganiban9339 so it's basically an early 2000s Mclaren

@@aspiknf how can you say that. senna did 2 races (taking poles in both of them) retiring in both of them, one of which was only his fault. as long as i can see schumacher did 2 faultless races that year, senna did not.

Hill almost won championship with it.

MS that’s only cuz Schumacher had so much going wrong in that season with those stupid race bans and disqualifications Williams were so lucky to be even in the championship cuz of those bans and DSQ

@@henrywhatzal4724 Still it was a car capable of winning races. We arent talking here about a Minardi.

I think so, just because or short tenure doesn't mean bad right?

Don't forget that the 94 Williams despite the poor aero, had the best Engine that was about 80hp+ over the other cars on the grid so it was much faster in the straights, but it handled like a dog which slowed it down tremendously

Oh yeah, I despise that car despite the arguements for it, plus ignoring the emotion and feelings to that it killed him is ridiculous, it is the worst car he drove

MegaherzZwei that is not the reason. It had been designed with Active suspention. The fia Banned the active suspention. Which made the car unstable.

@@durwin19 I disagree Senna was on to second place at Brazil and you are hit from behind at Japan. I'm with leading the race at imola before his fatal crash. How can that be his worst car?

@@ZoidPickle I agree that the car was unstable because it was designed to have active suspension. My point was simply that Williams were aware of it before anyone crashed. Williams tested at Circuit de Nogaro with Hill driving and he said that it was so unstable he could barely see because the car was bouncing around so badly. Just my opinion, but if it was so bad that it was that dangerous, Williams should have pulled the cars until the problem was fixed. Newey was able to make the car better later on by redesigning and fitting shorter side pods.

@@Dunky80 You said it yourself, it killed him. It was an unstable mess, and it cost one of the greatest of all time everything.

Yeah, this vid annoyed me. So much emotional bias, very little objective thinking.

They are English, mate. Being mad is their prerrogative.

Morfeu I see you haven’t met Americans

@@alexirussian9592 met more than my share of them. Ask me if I like any of them, please!

Morfeu do you like any of them?

agree

They also said he didn't do too well in that car. He came 3rd in the drivers championship

gold333 when schuey forced me onto the outside I spun on the pit exit.luckily I didn't hit him.then again in the first corner I kiss the white line again spinning luckily I was ahead of schuey but still not in control as Wendlinger continued my car settled and naturally ran wide.i continued and went down the outside (the gap).then it was a simple up the inside overtake. The important thing is that first corner was two spins..... I entered F1 at 15. I am alive.but but have metastases. My favourite was no 27.....

Speaking of consecetive Monaco wins, Rosberg got three on the bounce. Yes, the latter of his three wins was because Mercedes completely messed up Hamilton's strategy, but then again, Mansell had Senna beaten in 1987 until his turbo failed, and his 1993 win was very lucky due to Prost's drive throughs and Schumacher's retirement. Also, we must remember Senna could have very easily had 6 consecuetive Monaco victories if he hadn't had made the error at Portier. I'm not saying Senna was bad in Monaco, he was very good, but he wasn't unbeatable for sure.

Rip roland and thank you for being someone you remembers his death though senna was more 'tragic' Senna flew the Austrian flag as a tribute to him and died later that day

@@lennyhards7379 Erm Austrian, he flew the Austrian flag.

I hope you know that isn't the Austrian flag.

JMGaming First I found that was at least close #kurwa 😉

@@E-MAT-sz3sg it's close but that doesn't make it right.

SiVlog the mp4-5,5b and 6 were way better than the lotus’s

Also 3 poles for 3 in Williams cmon man

@@saltbjorn there was something about the combination of Senna's distinctive yellow helmet combined with the equally iconic black and gold JPS Lotuses that he drove in 1985 and 1986. Particularly the 1985 Lotus 97T, he achieved his breakthrough victory at Estoril in crushing style, pole, fastest lap, race win by over a minute. It was also his first pole position and first win, if Monaco 1984 showed what he could do, Estoril 1985 showed what could do with race winning machinery. Another factor, the man himself felt it was a better performance by him personally than Donnington 1993. The Lotus had none of the technical wizardry of the MP4-8, a manual gearbox, less downforce, significantly more power in the Renault V6 twin turbo than the normally aspirated Ford V8 in the McLaren that year and a harder to manage power delivery with the Renault V6 twin turbo as the Lotus didn't have traction control, launch control or active suspension at the time

@@saltbjorn besides, I based my order on more than just the sheer performance of the cars, but also the visual impact on me

SiVlog the lotus that senna drove was more competitive at the time than his 1993 McLaren - also you saying what technicals the McLaren had and all is completely irrelevant since everyone had that

Well sorta.. The design of the car is what caused the modifications to be made in the first place that ended up leading to that fatal accident because of one of the latest & poorest modifications of them all.. But I do agree, it was a modification that had killed him tho..

Yeah... The cars were so beautiful back then, simple design and had a flow to it

I prefer the John Player Special Lotus colours, but in terms of the design I much prefer the early 90s designs. The engine cover just looked squashed on the turbo-era cars. I would love to see what a MP4/6 or a Ferrari 641 would look like in them colours, plus a screaming V12 engine in the back.

Lmao the car matters no matter who's driving it, a slow car is a slow car and a fast car's a fast car

Stop worshiping him. The car is as important as a good driver is.

@Zeronality Ues so do Prost when outperforming the McLaren in his Ferrari that handle like trucks

Because its the mp4/4 with an airbox and a v10,really good looking car

Not the same Honda engine. One spec behind (RA166 99t vs RA167 FW11B). Lotus 100t (Piquet) had the very same engine of the McLaren 4/4 in 1988 (RA168). But I totally agree it's nosense the TG184 higher than the 98t.

yeah pretty stupid, people only care about senna

What do you expect from Autosport? It isn't what it was...

Rating Roland's F1 cars would have been a very short video.

@@PayasYouListen Doesn't matter. Should of still payed at least some form of tribute to him.

This is what happens in the age of clickbait....details get glossed over such as Ratzenberger's horrific crash.

So because he has closer competition and wont willingly make his life harder by driving on slicks hes a worse driver? Ok

You clearly weren't watching in 2009 😂 2007: very close, but second best car 2008: second best car 2009: ninth best car at the beginning of the season, fourth best car by the end 2010: third best car 2011: second best car, miles behind RBR 2012: close second fastest car, but terribly unreliable 2013: close second fastest car in quali, but fourth best in race trim 2014: dominant car 2015: dominant car 2016: dominant car 2017: close but marginally best car 2018: close but second best car 2019: dominant car in the first third of the season; close but marginally best car in the other two-thirds 2020: dominant car 2021: close but second best car as of round 14

A bit unfair to compare F1 in the 80s to today. Expecting modern drivers to win by a lap today is ridiculous. The 80s had teams like Life F1 and much more cars than today. The gap between teams was far greater too, something a lot of people would say is an improvement. You really want drivers winning by a lap? If we are going to judge drivers based on that Fangio far outranks Senna given races were won by minutes in those days. You are expecting drivers today to do things totally unrealistic. You think someone would actually drive on a wet track on slicks? No aids are going to overcome the sheer lack of grip. And even then, Hamilton has done something similar in Spa 08, where he stayed on drys in rainy conditions and won. He won by a lap at silverstone in 08, a year where TC was banned. Senna had driver aids at Donnington, so by your own logic Senna loses out. Has he had the best car most of his career? Yes. Did Fangio? Yes. But think you should ask why he is in those cars in the first place. Not even Senna won a championship without having the best car. I think Steven Nichols is right, some of you ignore stats or facts that dampen his performances because he died young in a racing car. Prost won more titles and won the 88 championship if normal rules applied. But you willingly ignore those facts because it damages your bias.

shut up !

still finished ahead of Senna and that is what counts !

Not the 2018 one for sure. Ferrari had the faster car at the first half of the season and remained competitive throughout. It was only Vettel's constant mistakes which denied them the title. The 2016 Mercedes won 19 out of 21 races and was in a class of its own. The 2015 Mercedes managed a record 12 1-2 finishes. Hamilton's own record for most laps led in a year was in 2015 with 587 laps led, second best is 2016 with 566 laps led.

@@yewisemountaingoat528Ah, okay I see your point. The reason I put it there is because Ferrari gave it everything in the first part of the season and still lost the title through mistakes. I guess the 2008 McLaren could be a better contender since it got him his first world title?

PizzaFaceBoye 2019 car number 1

2020 Merc was probably the best one they ever made tho

Jordie Evans it was a handful to handle. But it was developed well enough to take Hill to 2nd. Even Schumacher said Senna would have won it had he lived. It had the speed as the season progressed

The only GP driven by Senna, Schumacher and Hill in 1994, it was the Brazilian GP - Senna LAPPED Hill, who was 1.6 sec SLOWER than himself in the previous year with the FW15c. But Senna managed to equal Prost's time from the previous year. That's his merit.

im just soooooo surprised Schumacher outperformed him in a worse car no less! shame we didnt get 94 to settle the score

@@clicheguevara9917 Well, Schumacher scored more points, but Senna had more wins and retirements. When the Williams cars were there to be pushed(by their misfortune or otherwise), more often than not, it was Senna giving them the hassle. See Monaco, Hungary, Germany, Italy, Adelaide.

The Benneton >

Senna was only behind Schumacher in 92 due to reliability problems. In fact he was several positions ahead of Schumacher in most races he had to retire, just look it up to see I'm right. In 93 he was consistently ahead of Schumacher.

Berger had his best season in it.😂 He was only a point behind Senna. I think the Austrian did enough 90-91 to help the team win Constructors; but in 1992 he was negotiating with Ferrari.

Prix Champion agreed very poor

No there was still instability

Do you really think Senna would spin out if it was a good car? What about the lil incident at Imola?? That took he´s bloody life with FIA covering Williams untill today about the flaws of this magnificent car. Give me a break.

Well, Damon Hill, so I guess you're being sarcastic? I don't know why you'd leave him off the list.

Stefan Johansson and Damon Hill are missing. And I think Berger was way better than de Angelis. Senna destroyed de Angelis in 1985 he was a boring driver, both his wins were lucky ones. Berger had great moments and had a good year in 1992 as Senna's team mate.

Oh yeah... stupid me... Damon Hill strange isnt it... Just like his dad, carried the team after his team mate and the best driver at that point dies.... (maybe the same reason (both tyre/suspension related)... about Damon I,m putting him 3rd... he did a good job in 94... (only about 94 )

I'd switch Berger and De Angelis due to 1992 and 7 more wins, but an excellent list overall.

@MEGATRON They had the same car ,and Senna was slightly favoured.

You spelled the name right...

How did a less talented-if still great- Damon Hill nearly win WDC in it?

Same I love the 97t

Actually the 1985 Lotus had a chance of winning the championship. Nobody led more laps than Senna that season. Senna led 271 laps in 1985, world champion Prost led 178 laps, 2nd in championship Alboreto only led 98 laps. The Lotus 97T was fast enough to have 8 pole positions in 1985 (7 by Senna, 1 by De Angelis). You're saying the car got 3 out of 3 poles, but what about Lotus's 8 poles in 1985 when McLaren only had 2, Williams 3 and Ferrari 1? If Senna led 271 laps in 1985 (more than anybody else) then the car was obviously fast enough to be a winner. So why didn't he win the 1985 title? Well, there's the issue of reliability... Part of this was actually Senna's fault since he went flat out to win and the turbo era had fast but fragile cars. An example of him pushing too hard would be Imola 1985 which he led commandingly for the first 56 laps. With four laps to go he ran out of fuel. The next race was Monaco. Senna started from pole and led the first 17 laps, then he retired with engine problems. Fact is Senna scored 0 points in the 9 next races following his win in Portugal. Senna led the British GP the first 59 laps but got a fuel injection problem and retired with 6 more laps to go. He had also been a steady third in the Brazilian GP, the first race of the season but retired with electric problems. Had Senna just finished at Imola, Monaco and Silverstone he would have been 1985 world champion. Senna managed 8 poles in the 1986 Lotus but he raced 198 laps less than Prost and Piquet so reliability still plagued him and Lotus. "Those Lotus never had a chance of winning a championship by any means." Unless you really meant *Toleman* there's no way to call the 1985 and 1986 Lotuses uncompetitive.

Oh@@yewisemountaingoat528 how very wise you are 😉

Ye I really have to agree on that....I mean I do get 100% why some ppl just want to hate that car, because without question it was the technical failure of that car that ended up getting Senna killed and he never scored a point in it (although in Aida it wasnt because of technical failure but because he had collision at the start with Mika Häkkinen I believe) but you have to look at how good pace it had and after all, before the B-spec of the car came in French, Damon Hill still managed to win a race in it and take two 2nd places... So while it was unreliable and aerodynamically unstable even according to Newey himself, it was still good enough to take poles and even wins, though whether that was more thanks to that raw power of Renault engine is another debate. Either way I would personally still rate it atleast above 1987 Lotus, perhaps even above the two other Lotus cars as well, but ofc I could rate it well under all the Mclaren cars he drove. FW16B is completely another matter, but ofc that B-spec of a car he never got to drive unfortunately. Overall even FW16 though was faster than any other car besides Benetton and if we rate purely based on that, it doesnt indeed deserve to be that low.

They have?

mclaren honda = not even on the board lol ...

@@russ18uk only the worst

@@ThaDutchDK1989 yeah, probably since they already ranked them

Russ They only did the 5 lowest

The cause might have been also the steering column breaking, but that will be never known.

@@beeveli right, but it was never determined if the stering column broke before or during the crash. When you see what happens in our days when tyres are cold, just imagine what it was like 25 years ago...

No he doesnt. At the beginning of the season the car had an aero flaw resulting in a lack of rear grip. Senna managed to wrestle it to pole. It will forever be remembered as the car which he died in, most likely the result of a botched backyard engineering job to the steering shaft. I would put it dead last as well.

Listen carefully. They’re talking about the ‘92 car when he says that. Senna finished behind Schumacher in ‘92.

willams was still the fastest car !

@@19megamustaine85 not for the early races when Ayrton drove it. Just look at where his team mate qualified.

with that car it was lightning.. 8 consecutives pole

They couldn't get the tyres to work in qualifying.

Thanks bud!

@@gasler8556 No problem, actually I had to listen twice.

It was as intelligible as the turbo lag on the first turbo engines😂

@@gasler8556 Yes, it wasn't particularly clear. I don't actually agree them, even if the tyres worked properly the car wasn't fast enough. I rate Senna's 1987 Lotus as his worst Lotus.