All due respect KB, if that Kristian fellow couldn't even tell
the difference between a Williams and a McLaren, I'd take anything
he said with a bucket of salt.
I'd have to disagree with you on the issue of the car's standing in
the field.
The fact is that the Williams FW15 was obviously THE class of the
field, with TC, active suspension and all the bells and whistles,
powered by Renault who had taken over Honda's role after their
departure from F1. The results will show that both Championships
were a walkover that year (and the year before).
In fact, Senna's MP4/8 was not even up to scratch with Schumacher's
Benetton - McLaren, as the new customer, had to stick with the HBE7
engine while Benetton, as preferred customer, got the exclusive
upgrade to the HBA8.
In short, fact is that the Mac was nowhere near to being the best
car on the track in 1993, because they were recovering from being
dumped by Honda at the end of the previous year.
Fact is that either Senna read the road conditions better, or
simply drove better in the wet. IIRC, during the race, Senna
changed tyres four times, while Prost changed them seven times. I
think saying that a four-time WDC is no good in the wet is plain
ridiculous.
And, as mentioned before, fact is that when the flag fell,
everybody except for Hill had been lapped by Senna.
I'm not swayed at all by that thread - it's full of opinions but
VERY thin on facts.
How something like that could be "overhyped" is beyond me. You may
as well say that Fangio's drive at Nurburgring 1957 was
overhyped.
