Let me put this out there regarding Prost.
Discussion
entropy said:
Prost wanted out and signed for Ferrari.
He won the 1989 Italian GP. The tifosi loved it. Whether it was because of the moment or spite Prost handed the trophy to the tifosi. Ron the Don was livid as he loves his trophies and thought it was disrespectful.
That was a nasty move by Prost. It obviously meant to hurt and it did.He won the 1989 Italian GP. The tifosi loved it. Whether it was because of the moment or spite Prost handed the trophy to the tifosi. Ron the Don was livid as he loves his trophies and thought it was disrespectful.
Mr E said:
I read a (possibly mythical) line from a mclaren engineer that went along the lines of "if the car was perfect, Prost would extract the maximum from it and be untouchable. If the car was merely very good, Senna would make it work"
Given the realities of running a race team, who would you prefer?
I too have heard that before, so there must be something to it, and yet Prost managed to win races and be a title challenger practically straight out of the gate for four different teams. So if nothing else he was certainly rather good at getting himself into a perfect car.Given the realities of running a race team, who would you prefer?
He also manage to steal the 1986 title in a car that wasn't the best on the grid - a rare feat, though he did have help from the Williams team.
Also despite his calculated, win at the slowest speed approach, he does seem to have quite a few ex team mates who are happy to describe him as astonishingly quick. Watson, Lauda and Rosberg have all happily admitted that they couldn't live with his pace.
When you are competing against the talent that Prost faced, for such a long time, and the only driver of the lot who can make you look slow is Senna, a man widely regarded as the fastest there has ever been, that's pretty good in my book.
My team would be between Prost, Clark and Schumacher, but I think Prost and Clark would get along with eachother better than either would with Schumy.
Edited by Alfanatic on Saturday 10th May 08:52
Lauda had a good line about Prost v Senna. He said that the Prost he drove against in 84 would not have been beaten by Senna, by 1988 Prost was in his ninth year in F1 and a double world champion, not as hungry as he had been.
Perhaps that should be , with a healthy dose of self preservation.
The abiding memory for me is that Prost was called the professor from his F3 days, where he had been in a class of one. In a F1 car he was sublime, silky smooth, with seemingly effortless pace. In car cameras of Prost show a precision and control I have seen nowhere else. The guy was very special. Like most on this thread I would prefere to watch Nigel, but the professor commands respect. Even Frank Williams said Alain was the driver he enjoyed most in his team, perfect gentleman was the term I believe.
Perhaps that should be , with a healthy dose of self preservation.
The abiding memory for me is that Prost was called the professor from his F3 days, where he had been in a class of one. In a F1 car he was sublime, silky smooth, with seemingly effortless pace. In car cameras of Prost show a precision and control I have seen nowhere else. The guy was very special. Like most on this thread I would prefere to watch Nigel, but the professor commands respect. Even Frank Williams said Alain was the driver he enjoyed most in his team, perfect gentleman was the term I believe.
Prost had a dry sense of humour and wasnt a showman. He was there simply to race, win and the best. No sense of destiny or trying to proove others wrong or knock anyone from a perch. Lauda said he was the quickest bloke hed ever seen and Jo said he was quicker than Senna. Job jobbed.
Moobs said:
In same car Prost demolishes Senna in fastest laps acheived on race day. look it up.
Yeah, I'm not sure how Senna made Prost look slow, as someone has stated.Senna was almost always quicker on the Saturday. Prost was almost always quicker on the Sunday, and had a much better conversion rate from qually to race result.
The important bit is that the results were declared on the Sunday, not the Saturday, and point duly handed out. Prost accrued more points both years they were together.
It wa me who made Senna make Prost look slow. Certainly fastest laps tell a different story but fastest lap is not fastest race. Where fastest single lap counted, on Saturday, Senna's stats look better.
On race day, well it's more than twenty years ago now but I am pretty sure that Senna nearly always looked the quicker of the two. If he was behind, he was catching Prost, if he was ahead he was pulling away. That was my impression at the time. Being a Prost fan perhaps that impression was distorted by a touch of anxiety, but I am pretty sure I have seen figures somewhere that, when both McLarens finished the race, Senna was far more likely to finish in front of Prost than the other way around.
I am not trying to take anything away from Prost with this. By all accounts from those close to him he was blindingly fast. He was also, I think, a more complete driver than Senna, because Prost was more likely to score points and maximise any opportunity he had. Senna never managed to outpoint him over a championship in an equal car, and in fact I do believe that Prost has a better wins per race ratio than Senna as well as his more predictable better podiums per race.
But I do think that few, including Prost himself, would argue that Prost was the quicker of the two over a single flying lap.
On race day, well it's more than twenty years ago now but I am pretty sure that Senna nearly always looked the quicker of the two. If he was behind, he was catching Prost, if he was ahead he was pulling away. That was my impression at the time. Being a Prost fan perhaps that impression was distorted by a touch of anxiety, but I am pretty sure I have seen figures somewhere that, when both McLarens finished the race, Senna was far more likely to finish in front of Prost than the other way around.
I am not trying to take anything away from Prost with this. By all accounts from those close to him he was blindingly fast. He was also, I think, a more complete driver than Senna, because Prost was more likely to score points and maximise any opportunity he had. Senna never managed to outpoint him over a championship in an equal car, and in fact I do believe that Prost has a better wins per race ratio than Senna as well as his more predictable better podiums per race.
But I do think that few, including Prost himself, would argue that Prost was the quicker of the two over a single flying lap.
Alfanatic said:
It wa me who made Senna make Prost look slow. Certainly fastest laps tell a different story but fastest lap is not fastest race. Where fastest single lap counted, on Saturday, Senna's stats look better.
On race day, well it's more than twenty years ago now but I am pretty sure that Senna nearly always looked the quicker of the two.
To be fair this is what the thread is about. I've probably taken your comment incorrectly.On race day, well it's more than twenty years ago now but I am pretty sure that Senna nearly always looked the quicker of the two.
As I said, with Senna came a heck of a lot of 'stuff', or fuss or baggage or call it what you will, there was probably more happening on track and off track and Senna was possibly getting himself into too much trouble both on and off track, and possibly lost out by not getting the sport's hierarchy on side.
In contrast Prost was chalking up just as impressive a set of achievements "more wins, more podium finishes, more points and more fastest laps than any driver who ever participated in Formula One" at the time that was written - yet did so with the minimum of fuss, and could indeed make it all look boring.
Does that not suggest that the whole process was more difficult for Senna and the other drivers than it was for Prost?
heebeegeetee said:
Does that not suggest that the whole process was more difficult for Senna and the other drivers than it was for Prost?
I certainly think Prost had a habit of making it look that way. Prost and Senna were two titans of the sport and I think their results against eachother reflect that. I think Senna had the edge on outright pace and his ruthlesness was on balance an advantage when they got amongst the backmarkers - in fact now I think back that seemed to be when Senna tended to be doing a lot of the catching up - but in every other aspect I think Prost had the edge over Senna. I think, add a big dose of ruthlessness to Prost's driving and you get Schumacher, and then I think Senna would have come second. But we'll never know.Justaredbadge said:
What about Lauda and Stewart?
I'd put them as a joint 3rd, but only by the very narrowest of margins. There's very little between all 4 of them. My favouritest driver ever will always be Stewart, not because he was the quickest, or the most calculating but I do think he's one of the most complete drivers the sport has seen, his approach to every element was always clinical. Think a lot of drivers took inspiration from that.
Prost liked to moan- (hence being fired by both renault and ferrari), and play politics (balestre!).
'86 he was gifted the championship after mansells tyre blow out, '89 he turned in on senna at suzuka, wrongly got out of the car, then complained to his chum balestre, who hated senna as much as he did.
Suzuka '90 he got what he deserved for the year before imho.
No disputing he was phenomenally quick and naturally gifted driver, but he certainly liked to play games behind the scenes, whereas mansell & senna were more outspoken in their opinions and criticisms.
It would have been very interesting to see him when refuelling returned and race strategy /pitstops played an increasingly important role. For sure his professor moniker would have played a part and i have no doubt he would have won more championships.
'86 he was gifted the championship after mansells tyre blow out, '89 he turned in on senna at suzuka, wrongly got out of the car, then complained to his chum balestre, who hated senna as much as he did.
Suzuka '90 he got what he deserved for the year before imho.
No disputing he was phenomenally quick and naturally gifted driver, but he certainly liked to play games behind the scenes, whereas mansell & senna were more outspoken in their opinions and criticisms.
It would have been very interesting to see him when refuelling returned and race strategy /pitstops played an increasingly important role. For sure his professor moniker would have played a part and i have no doubt he would have won more championships.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff