Talk:Ayrton Senna/Archive 2

Untitled

Discussions with no comments in the past month have been moved to the archive, which you can access from the newly placed archive box on this page. Ham Pastrami 09:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Some words from the original author

Thank you all for reducing this article into the mess that it is now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gold333 (talk • contribs) 12:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Schumacher vs. Senna

Sadly, we'll never know who was the superior driver, so I'm removing the claim that Senna was "more talented". --Robert Merkel 07:43, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Answer : Actually, everybody who saw F1 in the lasts 20 years knows that are a LOT of drivers superiors to Schumacher. Schumacher NEVER used to be "the greatest" nobody called him or gave him this title, but Senna. Even Schumacher himself knows that there's a teacher who teached him how to be cool... how to be agressive... and this one is Senna, I(myself with my own eyes) saw Schumacher in Monaco this year(2007) with a Brazilian flag to honor his idol(Senna), also he takes a LOT of photos to an album, with Berguer, Prost, Pelé, Ronaldo, and some more. There's no answer about "who's faster" i agree, but be fast is not what F1 is all about. F1 is about to be DRIVER and Senna is light years a better driver than Schumacher, and Schumacher himselfs recognize it, only fans can't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.48.138.57 (talk) 04:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I must agree with Robert Merkel, no true comparison can be made because they where never simultaneously at the pinnacle of their careers in the same car. Schumacher did however win 7 world championships, an achievement even Senna would probably have never reached. Even opinion between drivers who raced against both are divided, so it is a huge error to say everybody knows because a lot will say Schumacher. To say Schumacher knows Senna was the better is ridiculous, and if you do ask anyone in F1 how to win, they will tell you to "be the fastest!" -- User765 19:49, 12 September 2007 (GMT)

"The MP4/8, although one of the front running cars, was considered inferior to the leading Williams FW15C of Prost and Hill, and the Benetton B193 - which used a factory-supplied Ford engine - driven by Michael Schumacher and Riccardo Patrese. [49]" Whether the McLaren MP4/8 or the Benetton B193 was better is highly debatable. The engine is one thing but aerodinamically the McLaren was maybe better and of course it was definitely better on the electronics side, at least until Monaco when Benetton first got their electronic driver aids. And from Silverstone on both teams got the same engine sepc from Ford. Especially in the Donington wet race the fact that McLaren had electronic driver aids and Benetton didn't was probably a big advantage for McLaren, so I don't think the sentence I quoted above is fair or even accurate in suggesting Senna beat a superior Benetton there. In that wet race that Benetton was more than likely pretty much inferior to the McLaren. 78.92.39.54 (talk) 10:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's put things in perspective here. The quote "..an achievement even Senna would probably have never reached" is too presumptuous. If Senna was alive, Schumacher would have never won 7 championships. However, it is true. We will never now who was the better driver, but there are facts which makes me believe that Senna was superior. Simply look at the competitors that Senna had in the pinnacle of his career: Prost, Mansell, Piquet. Most of Schumacher career, there were no real competitors, except for Alonso and Hakkinen. Again, we will never know, but that tragic day in May 1994 surely stripped us from what could have been a great battle.

Wet weather driving

The photo at the beginning of this section is Ayrton driving in dry conditions. It would make much more sense to have a wet weather photo, notably something from Donington. Conquerer 20:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the "Wet weather driving" section should be removed completely. No real sources or anything. Or actually, it should be removed for the exact same reason as on the Michael Schumacher page. It's really kind of funny (looks like favouritism) that on this Senna page the article remains, but is removed on the Schumacher page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SchumiChamp (talk • contribs) 18:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the article should be removed, though it could do with better citation and some of the phrases sound a bit "fannish" and could do with re-wording. I don't really think what is or isn't in the Schumacher article has any relevance here though. Kelpin 12:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why consistency has no relevance?

I think a section would be justified in both articles, both drivers had outstanding drives in the wet. More citation and less hagiography are required, though. -- Ian Dalziel 12:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

My point is that we're not debating the Schumacher article here. If you think its right or wrong for the MS article to feature his wet weather skills then a case needs to be made on the talk page for his article. What we are discussing here is whether the Senna article merits a section on wet weather driving, which I think it does and you presumably think it does. Kelpin 12:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Where do you suggest we should discuss whether the presentation of the articles should be consistent, then? <G> -- Ian Dalziel 15:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Here [1] the talk page for the Formula One project. Kelpin 16:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I shall await your argument for inconsistency there, then, shall I? -- Ian Dalziel 09:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

This is the discussion on adding a rain section to Schumacher's article [2] no one was arguing against one. The issue seemed to be over the quality of the proposed section. Why are you having this argument here? Discuss it on Schumacher's page or better still write a decent first draft of the proposed section. Kelpin 12:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you may have missed a <G> up the page there. We aren't in disagreement about either article anyway - the only thing I disagreed with was your statement that what is in one article is irrelevant to what should be in another. -- Ian Dalziel 12:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Insert non-formatted text here This section does not come across as impartial or useful. No driver at the level of Formula One could be seen as world class without being proficient in both wet and dry conditions. Senna's drive at Donnington is frequently cited as an indication of extraodinary talent, however there are several factors that even Senna pointed out after that race. That year Mclaren were one of the only teams still using V8 engines (in their case the customer Ford) where the majority of the grid were using the recently adopted V 10 engines. The Ford was down on power compared to the v 10's, but the wider power band allowed for better drivability in wet conditions.Senna also commented that he noticed his competitors struggling with locking rear wheels whilst braking for Redgate corner on the first lap, giving him the confidence to out brake so many others on that first lap. All the same he still lapped the field. His debut drive at Monaco is also seen as a stand out performance, but at his admission was more a case of a young man taking a lot of chances with an already damaged car. Suspension damage that Senna suffered earlier in the race would have been terminal had it not rained, slowing the pace of the race enough that the weakened component was not stressed to the point of finally breaking. Either way he was incredibly brave in the wet, had great car control and I think he was pretty mega in the wet. Just dont think you should claim he's the best ever in a reference article. Over the years levels of technology sophistication have made it harder to really assess the ability of a driver in comparison to another. How would the likes of Fangio,Nuvolari, Clark, Moss, Severt (for example) size up in more current machinery? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.130.25 (talk) 20:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The Greastest of All Times

What's the deal with the "It" instead of he in these quotes, are they actual quotes or have they been translated from English to some other language and back again? I'd correct it, but I'd like someone else to verify. Rajohnas 02:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes. The whole swathe of quotes have clearly come from a translation into another language and been translated back using a translation engine. I've deleted them - again. It's a pity in a way, they are genuine and at least some of them probably do merit inclusion, but they would have to be in English! -- Ian Dalziel 09:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

This section does not come across as impartial or useful. No driver at the level of Formula One could be seen as world class without being proficient in both wet and dry conditions. Senna's drive at Donnington is frequently cited as an indication of extraodinary talent, however there are several factors that even Senna pointed out after that race. That year Mclaren were one of the only teams still using V8 engines (in their case the customer Ford) where the majority of the grid were using the recently adopted V 10 engines. The Ford was down on power compared to the v 10's, but the wider power band allowed for better drivability in wet conditions.Senna also commented that he noticed his competitors struggling with locking rear wheels whilst braking for Redgate corner on the first lap, giving him the confidence to out brake so many others on that first lap. All the same he still lapped the field.

(It is not is correct that Mclaren received the same spec engines as Bennetton after or at the Silverstone race in 1993. - Ford was contractually obliged to supply only Bennetton with the HB "Factory" specification for 1993. Ayrton made this point frequently, especially as he was leading the championship and clearly wanted the more powerful motor to put him on a more level playing field.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.106.243.18 (talk) 22:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

His debut drive at Monaco is also seen as a stand out performance, but at his admission was more a case of a young man taking a lot of chances with an already damaged car. Suspension damage that Senna suffered earlier in the race would have been terminal had it not rained, slowing the pace of the race enough that the weakened component was not stressed to the point of finally breaking. Either way he was incredibly brave in the wet, had great car control and I think he was pretty mega in the wet. Just dont think you should claim he's the best ever in a reference article. Over the years levels of technology sophistication have made it harder to really assess the ability of a driver in comparison to another. How would the likes of Fangio,Nuvolari, Clark, Moss, Severt (for example) size up in more current machinery? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.130.25 (talk) 20:35, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I added the statement in the intro that Ayrton Senna is considered as being one of the greatest drivers of all time. Some may see this as a POV statement, but I added it for the following reasons:
1. Senna is almost certainly considered more than any other driver for the title of "the greatest".
2. 99% of the time Senna's name will be included in any discussion on who was the greatest driver.
3. The point is backed up in the article by three distinguished sources (ie, Bernie Ecclestone, Alan Henry and a panel of F1 insiders, gathered for a publication in F1 Racing, a respectable F1 magazine)
4. For anyone with a limited knowledge of Ayrton Senna, the point that he is considered "one of the greatest drivers" is important, since it has been a tag which has been labelled on him more often than not since his death. The same tag would not apply, for instance to other 3-time WC winners such as Jack Brabham or Nelson Piquet(no disrespect intended in any way to their talents; quite the contrary they were both extremely good racers, but the tag of "the greatest" has never been applied to them as it has been applied to Senna.)

Just to clear that up for those who are wondering. On a personal note, I find the talk of "the greatest driver" redundant, since I think comparing Senna to Fangio, or even say, Senna to Hamilton, or other modern drivers, is a pointless, fruitless exercise. However, it seemed important to include this note in this article. :) TheLopper (talk) 16:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Suggested article

I suggest that someone create the article Rivalry between Alain Prost and Ayrton Senna (or similar), merging and moving all related content from Ayrton Senna and Alain Prost. This way, you're not duplicating the information or hiding bias on each driver's page. Ham Pastrami 09:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

2nd Paragraph of Intro contains verbatim copying of Grandprix.com article

The entire paragraph is made up of sentences which were copied verbatim from this grandprix.com entry on Senna http://grandprix.com/gpe/drv-senayr.html The Dunnie 19:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Gone. It had only been there an hour, and it's purple POV anyway. -- Ian Dalziel 22:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Better Introduction

A much better introduction is needed for Ayrton Senna's page, Michael Schumacher and Alain Prost have huge introductions and Senna does not. I think it is a disgrace to his legacy and I find it insulting that no one is bothered to act on this.

Feel free to click on the 'edit' tab at the top of the page and get to it! Or post your suggested words here for others to comment on if you prefer. :) See WP:LEAD for guidance on content and length. Cheers. 4u1e 13:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

A far better introduction is in the Gerald Donaldson article : "He streaked through the sport like a comet, an other-worldly superstar whose brilliance as a driver was matched by a dazzling intellect and coruscating charisma that illuminated Formula One racing as never before. No one tried harder or pushed himself further, nor did anyone shed so much light on the extremes to which only the greatest drivers go. Intensely introspective and passionate in the extreme, Ayrton Senna endlessly sought to extend his limits, to go faster than himself, a quest that ultimately made him a martyr but did not diminish his mystique." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.1.159.103 (talk) 22:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately that text fails to satisfy several Wikipedia guidelines, e.g. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and contains many peacock terms. DH85868993 (talk) 09:39, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Leading section revamp

It's been revamped from scratch, please help improving prose, removing pov, adding references (I think there are already in the body of the article). keep layout (all big drivers have more than just one paragraph, you know)... User:C_trillos —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.28.83.202 (talk) 06:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

As it stands now, it isn't really a lead. Too much detail, and quite a lot of unsourced POV. -- Ian Dalziel 09:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The introductory paragraph is still miles too long. Any Senna experts want to have a go at pruning it by about 75%? Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Controversial driver

What on Earth happened to this section considering Senna is the most controversial driver ever?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SchumiChamp (talk • contribs) 19:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

It was deleted because it simply repeated, at length, material from the main body of the article, although not always with the same details. I agree Senna was a controversial driver (not necessarily the most controversial driver), and have no objection in his case to the addition of a 'controversy' section (others may not agree, however). If such a section is to be created, the rest of the article needs to be re-written to go with it, which is not a trivial task. 4u1e (talk) 16:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

More picture of Senna required

More pictures are needed because the current main picture of Senna is terrible —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.67.130 (talk) 22:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

If you can find one that is free to use (which will not be easy), then please go ahead and add it! 4u1e (talk) 16:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Wait a minute. Why does Schumacher still have that section then? Clearly people are trying to deny all of Senna's controversy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SchumiChamp (talk • contribs) 07:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

This article is bery biased, not showing the rumourous gossip about his homosexuality (which configures homophobia by the autor) and of course the dirty sponsorship of tobacco industry in his career (which is a shameful bit of an otherwise perfect sportsman —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lulafan (talk • contribs) 12:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Tobacco wasn't considered something "dirty" in that era as it is today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.106.173.113 (talk) 03:11, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

The words "rumourous gossip" probably tell us why it isn't in the article. And do remember that one of the weaknesses of a collaborative project such as this is that people edit the things that interest them and not always the things that don't. This alone will give the resulting product a certain inconsistency. Britmax (talk) 08:46, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Suzuka 1989/1990

"1989 Prost clearly hit Senna. From his onboard you see Prost look in the mirror and then go OFF LINE TO HIT SENNA!" Prost is the first champion i know of to hit another driver for the title! "In contrast, Prost's more subtle use of an identical strategy to defeat Senna the preceding year was somehow perceived as being justified."

This needs to be toned down. To me - and I think to most - there is a world of difference between the two incidents. Senna drove into Prost in both cases. What Prost did in 1989 - and said beforehand he would do - was refuse to move offline to avoid an accident. Senna admitted afterwards he intentionally drove straight into Prost's car 1n 1990. The 1989 incident was in a relatively slow corner, the 1990 incident was at a potentially lethal speed.

How do you figure when Prost went OFF LINE TO HIT SENNA turned in way to early or late if he wanted to defend his position. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.55.10.114 (talk) 16:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

In any case, what we need to be recording here is not your opinion or my opinion or a weasel opinion - that is only OR after all. -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 14:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I have taken that out, again. There is no way this sentence can stay in without a clarification of who is perceiving that Prost's actions were justified, and some verification of that, and also some clarification of the claimed "identical" nature of the action taken by Prost. Who says his action was "more subtle"? Also, "Somehow" is a weasel word. As it stands, it's just an idea from an editor, and certainly OR. I happen to agree with the statement, but if this article is ever going to be anything like well-written, this kind of thing has to be sorted out. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

"As it stands, it's just an idea from an editor, and certainly OR" - rather like the rest of the paragraph and most of the article! I've changed it back, but if you want to stick with the pathetic, wholly unreferenced interpretation you've got at the moment fine. Prosts action in 1989 were deliberate and his action could also have been lethal - sufficient Marshalls have been killed or seriously injured in incidents like this to know that no accident is 'safe'. [[3]] is used as a reference on the 1989 Japanese Grand Prix which might help illuminate opinions of the 1989 incident. The woeful ministrations of Jean-Marie Balestre under the auspices of the FIA throughout 1989 and 1990 seasons combined with Prosts off-track politics were without doubt the major factors in bringing about the 1990 fiasco. Unfortunately the British press went anti-Senna from the moment he vetoed Warwicks chances at Lotus and consequently failed the sport of F1 miserably by standing back in 1989 when they should have been shouting fix! Mighty Antar (talk) 16:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

We clearly disagree about the incidents at Suzuka. I repeat, what we need in this article is neither your opinion nor my pathetic opinion. You might consider both WP:OR and WP:CIVIL at this point. [4] might help illuminate, as you say, that there is more than one opinion. Now can we try to achieve some kind of consensus without total reverts? -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 17:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Ian's right, well possibly except about who was at fault (As it happens I was a Prost fan, so my view (i.e. that the events really were quite different) probably isn't entirely unbiased!). No assertions that the events were similar or different should be made without references. About the most we can do otherwise is note that they crashed two years running, and that Senna admitted that the second event was deliberate. The fact that many parts of the rest of the article offer editorial points of view isn't a good reason to add/maintain more. Just my two penn'orth... 4u1e (talk) 18:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I've had more than enough of this already. The whole article is a basketcase, and if, when an attempt is made to reduce the amount of editor opinion, we just get into a puerile edit war, I'm out. I have better things to do. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Image

Here's another free use image at flickr [5]. Royalbroil 22:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Early life

Does anyone have more information on Senna's early life? It could use some expanding. Sage J Callahan 16:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Yea i agree i think people need to find more information to improve it Veggiegirl (talk) 06:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

- what about during his carting days? did someone offered sponsorships? how young is he when he started his passion for driving? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.107.17.73 (talk) 21:51, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Bad article

The whole thing needs to be rewritten in proper accordance with WP:NPOV and WP:BLP policies Karpouzi (talk) 21:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I know, but I don't think anyone can sum up the energy to tackle it. It's a large subject and one many many people have strongly held views about. 4u1e (talk) 14:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

There's an error in the Legacy section. Careca never played the 1994 Fifa World Cup; he played 1990 World Cup. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.110.75.25 (talk) 02:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Did Ayrton Senna suffer a (temporary) facial paralysis ?

Somebody has put Ayrton Senna's name on the list of famous persons with Bell's Palsy. I see no evidence in this article, and only limited evidence in a Google search. I'll take him off the list until further notice.Power.corrupts (talk) 08:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

He had it for some time in 1985, and recovered IIRC. Check out Sid Watkin's autobiography Karpouzi (talk) 15:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Thx for prompt reply. I have no access to this doc. Could somebody add a few lines of this event in the main article. Meanwhile I'll put him back on the Bell's list with a fact mark, and a ref to this page. Power.corrupts (talk) 18:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

It is in Sid Watkins book, but referred to only as 'a facial weakness from a virus infection'. That matches Bell's Palsy, but it could have been something else, and in any case hardly seems notable. 4u1e (talk) 18:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

It is in Alan Henry's book as Bell's Palsy, quoting Watkins Karpouzi (talk) 10:48, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

It is written as Bell's palsy on page 102 of this months F1 racing magazine —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.17.42.144 (talk) 19:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

spanish

okay in an interview he spoke spainish well [6] just wondering if that should be put here or atlease looked in to (seeing if he has hispanic relatives etc) you know?Veggiegirl (talk) 01:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The mp4/8 was not as bad as people think

Towards the end of 1993..in the hands of Senna and Hakkinen. even with the Ford engine it may have been the fastest Car...Lets Say Senna Stayed at Mclaren and Mclaren got the Z-tech Ford V8 and not the crappy Paugeot. The Williams was so far ahead in terms of all of the tech that it was completely unstable without it, The new rules would have help Benetton ( i am sure they had some illigal stuff in the BB194)....Would it have been imaginable the Senna could have just as easily been world chmp in the Mclaren? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.1.50.12 (talk) 10:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The MP4/8 was a good chassis but the Renault engine had around an 80+ HP advantage, and the Benetton team was a Ford works team and received works engines instead of the customer engines received by McLaren. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.229.0.129 (talk) 04:34, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Homosexuality

Why the rumours of his homosexuality are not addressed in this article? Is there some kind of homophobia going on here? The gossip that is well known graced major brazilian TV channels during Ayrton´s career, and the mere fazt that a girlfriend just popped out of the blue means that there is something of a truth in this so called gossip.

Lol, that rumuor was spread by Nelson Piquet when he and Senna argued after Piquet won the championship and Senna was rookie of the year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.84.241.121 (talk) 22:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, the endorsing of smoking, and being a model advocating for the tobbacco industry, is a issue that should have been well documented in his article. You can say he was a deeply religious man (that cannot be verified) but you can´t say he was an endorser of cancer and child labor? (Well documented, most of his fortune comes from that dubious sponsorship received all along his career)

WHAT IS THAT, BIASED, OVER PROTECTIVE OF A PERSONNS DEEP LITTLE DIRTY SECRETS? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lulafan (talk • contribs) 12:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The material that the IP has been adding is original research, and I have thus reverted it. If you are to insert it, please source it to a reliable source. Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 12:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

This is bullshit, this so called original research is a well known issue that major TV channels on Brazil displayed in the 90´s regarding his constant company of a personnal aid. Son after a girlfriend was extensivelly portraied along side him to dismis those said gossips. I saw it in the TV, so I am a reliable source. REgarding lung cancer induced by nicotine, that is a well know and documented issue, and tobacco sponsorship is a deep blemish in F1 teams. So that is not to be talked about? Child labor on tobacco farms is a major issue in Ayrton´s home country. That just means that he was not endorsing this shit by running for a team that was sponsored by tobacco? Lulafan (talk) 12:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but users are not reliable sources. If you can provide a internet or book source, by all means, it can get added to the article. D.M.N. (talk) 12:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Ayrton´s father, alongside his business partners are accused of slavery in the groups´ 6000hec cotton farm in Bahia - Brazil.

See the link - article in portuguese (Brazil)

http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/folha/brasil/ult96u372190.shtml

Lulafan (talk) 12:55, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

http://facha.edu.br/publicacoes/jornallab_meier/2004/maio/arquivos/Pag3.pdf

Lulafan (talk) 13:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, but the article is about Ayrton, not his father.. --KaragouniS :  Chat  14:03, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

This discussion needs to become relevant in some way, or it doesn't even deserve to be on the talk page. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:10, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

The claims in this section of the talk page are absolutely ridiculous. Someone already addressed the "gay" rumours which were spread by Nelson Piquet who verbally attacked Senna many times -- the two were definitely not friends, which sparked from Piquet snubbing Senna in their first meeting and Piquet subsequently vetoing him coming to Brabham in 1984. As for the tobacco sponsorship, you have got to be kidding me. Nearly everyone and every team on the grid was sponsored by a tobacco firm. Tobacco firms nearly ran Formula 1 back in the 70s, 80s, and 90s and the advertising was literally everywhere. You are honestly an idiot for trying to link this to an individual driver when it was heavily involved with the entire sport. As for the slavery accusations of Senna's father, it is completely irrelevant to this article. It seems to me these arguments are coming from those who have something against the man and this is not the place for that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.229.0.129 (talk) 04:30, 14 November 2009 (UTC)