prost almost raced a ferrari in 1996?

couple of interesting revelations from the professor in his response to schumacher not racing in valencia.

Jean Todt suggested that I become team-mate to Schumacher to help him become champion at Ferrari. I would have been clearly number two, which was ok - I almost drove, but finally I did not, for the same reasons.

is this new news? i don't remember hearing it at the time.

Its old news. he talked about it in the mid 90s and said michael would have been superor to him in some ways ect.

Its old news. he talked about it in the mid 90s and said michael would have been superor to him in some ways ect.

Well, he would have been contracted as no.2, so it's pretty obvious in which way MS would be superior.

Ups, did the Le Professeur accidentically spill the beans on Ferraris driver policy in the MS era? Naughty boy...

Well, he would have been contracted as no.2, so it's pretty obvious in which way MS would be superior.

Ups, did the Le Professeur accidentically spill the beans on Ferraris driver policy in the MS era? Naughty boy...

It's hardly a secret that Michael was the contractual no. 1 during the Irvine days, given that Irvine himself openly said as much on a great many occasions and was never censured by the team for doing so.

Wow, I never heard this before...

I have huge difficulties to believe Prost would have accepted
to be a Nr. 2 driver (while he seems to imply the contrary).

Strange.

So this number 1-2 driver thingy at Ferrari just cannot be denied anymore... and it is clear that JT was supporting this policy.

Its quite something to have asked Prost to become No. 2 to Schumacher in 96...

I love this story! Good job Prost (backstabber)!

It's hardly a secret that Michael was the contractual no. 1 during the Irvine days, given that Irvine himself openly said as much on a great many occasions and was never censured by the team for doing so.

Austria 2002 makes Ruben's status crystal as well...

It's hardly a secret that Michael was the contractual no. 1 during the Irvine days,

Believe me, to many it still is not only a secret but something which they would dispute even under torture.

... given that Irvine himself openly said as much on a great many occasions and was never censured by the team for doing so.

During his active years at Ferrari he talked about being contractual no.2? That would surprise me, TBH.

So this number 1-2 driver thingy at Ferrari just cannot be denied anymore... and it is clear that JT was supporting this policy.

Its quite something to have asked Prost to become No. 2 to Schumacher in 96...

I love this story! Good job Prost (backstabber)!

It was never denied, Irvine always said he was a no2 on contract and Ferrari never denied that, even Rubens mentioned that when he said he was 1B in the team, which for me means no 2

Edited by Dino Scuderia, 12 August 2009 - 11:05.

both retired with similar reasons:

prost

For 1994, Senna finally signed with the Williams-Renault team. Prost's contract clause forbidding Senna from joining Williams did not extend to 1994 and Prost retired with one year left on his contract, rather than face the prospect of being a team mate of his greatest rival

schumacher


retired because of raikkonen contract with ferari for 2006!!

Edited by lafitek, 12 August 2009 - 11:06.

It was never denied, Irvine always said he was a no2 on contract and Ferrari never denied that, even Rubens that when he said he was 1B in the team, which for me means no 2

Well.. let me rephrase then... it was never MS or Ferrari who came out and said: listen folks... Michael is number one, always... and the other guy is number two.. always...

It was always the number two drivers who at some point started talking and giving hints that they were in a lesser, unequal position..

Edited by glorius&victorius, 12 August 2009 - 11:11.

both retired with similar reasons:

prost

For 1994, Senna finally signed with the Williams-Renault team. Prost's contract clause forbidding Senna from joining Williams did not extend to 1994 and Prost retired with one year left on his contract, rather than face the prospect of being a team mate of his greatest rival

schumacher


retired because of raikkonen contract with ferari for 2006!!

I don't see why that merit thumbs down though, it's pretty normal and damn better than hang on to it for too long because no one can stay on top for ever.

Regarding Prost I can fully understand he didn't want to team up with Senna again after the 1988-89 situation. Especially not when Prost already hade proven himself and didn't have to do anything to get in. The 88-89 situation was bad and I can fully understand why Prost hade no desire to relive that again and that has nothing to do with being beaten or not. Mind you that neither Prost or Senna was beaten, they had a draw as teammates with 1-1.

Regarding Schmacher it's a different but also similar situation. He had been in F1 since 1991 at that point and experienced as much success as anyone could wish for, he was at the end of his career give or take a few years and the difficult thing is to know when to stop. Just ask Nigel Mansell or Jacques Villeneuve. Schumacher managed to time his retirement perfectly. He retired when still being on top, challenging for the championship up until his final race. Like it or not, he had enjoyed a superior position within the team since 1996 as their lead driver with all focus around him and the team being built around him. He'd groomed Massa into probably the best team-mate he had and the option to not retire would be to sort of "steal" Massas place and face a new driver in Räikkönen that at that time was Ferraris future while Schumacher was their past pretty much.

I think both Prost and Schumacher made very good decisions that rather deserves a thumb up than a thumb down. They did what most athletes dream of - have a long extremely successful career and still managing to see the window for when it is time to retire while still on the top.

Perfect.

I don't see why that merit thumbs down though, it's pretty normal and damn better than hang on to it for too long because no one can stay on top for ever.

Regarding Prost I can fully understand he didn't want to team up with Senna again after the 1988-89 situation. Especially not when Prost already hade proven himself and didn't have to do anything to get in. The 88-89 situation was bad and I can fully understand why Prost hade no desire to relive that again and that has nothing to do with being beaten or not. Mind you that neither Prost or Senna was beaten, they had a draw as teammates with 1-1.

Regarding Schmacher it's a different but also similar situation. He had been in F1 since 1991 at that point and experienced as much success as anyone could wish for, he was at the end of his career give or take a few years and the difficult thing is to know when to stop. Just ask Nigel Mansell or Jacques Villeneuve. Schumacher managed to time his retirement perfectly. He retired when still being on top, challenging for the championship up until his final race. Like it or not, he had enjoyed a superior position within the team since 1996 as their lead driver with all focus around him and the team being built around him. He'd groomed Massa into probably the best team-mate he had and the option to not retire would be to sort of "steal" Massas place and face a new driver in Räikkönen that at that time was Ferraris future while Schumacher was their past pretty much.

I think both Prost and Schumacher made very good decisions that rather deserves a thumb up than a thumb down. They did what most athletes dream of - have a long extremely successful career and still managing to see the window for when it is time to retire while still on the top.

Perfect.

I don't know in what world the rest of you were living in Schumacher always had number one status since 1994.It never was a secret.

I'd never heard that news before.

And Prost was fired from Ferrari in 1991...

This is not a Senna v Prost thread.

at the time i never heard this, i not beleieve prost come back as number 2 thats BS.
he was firm after 1993 he didn't want to return.

He did a lot of testing for McLaren, as he was an "advisor" at the time, much as Schumacher is for Ferrari now.

If he was going to return with anyone, it would have been McLaren.

He did a lot of testing for McLaren, as he was an "advisor" at the time, much as Schumacher is for Ferrari now.

If he was going to return with anyone, it would have been McLaren.

Well, you should talk to the man himself with any complaints. It's not some strange rumours but straight from the horses nose, so to speak.

I'd never heard that news before.

And Prost was fired from Ferrari in 1991...

Well in 1996 everything was different who knows. I also never heard about it but im sure Prost isn't making things up.

Well in 1996 everything was different who knows. I also never heard about it but im sure Prost isn't making things up.

Yeah, what is the point for him to be bragging, making up a story where he was proposed a number 2 contract?

at the time i never heard this, i not beleieve prost come back as number 2 thats BS.
he was firm after 1993 he didn't want to return.

That's not what I remember. Prost signed a contract for 2 years ('93 & '94) and enjoyed the racing and having Damon Hill as teammate. But his relationship with the FIA wasn't good which detracted from his enjoyment. Had Williams retained Hill, he would likely have stayed but facing Senna in the same team was simply not on the cards.

Yet he tested after his retirement for McLaren, indicating in my mind that he wasn't quite done with F1. Just as Schumacher's testing in previous years indicated IMO that he wasn't quite ready with F1.
Contrast that with Irvine or Hill and you see the difference.

It seems as if few drivers who quit at the right moment (like Jones, Lauda, Prost, Schumacher etc) manage to stay retired. Somehow they still want to drive F1 cars. Maybe because they feel as if there is still some 'unfinished business'?

Well in 1996 everything was different who knows. I also never heard about it but im sure Prost isn't making things up.

I have read it in a newspaper, if my memory serves me right, back in 2000, after MS clinched his first WDC. All the while, I had been trying to search the news via Google because I was asked to quote it, it wasn't there, and now finally we have it.

Yes, Prost had almost been MS' teammate in 1996 in order to help MS and Ferrari to win WDC / WCC. (According to Prost himself).

Wow, I never heard this before...

I have huge difficulties to believe Prost would have accepted
to be a Nr. 2 driver (while he seems to imply the contrary).

Strange.

He was probably offered huge dollars for it which he could have used with Prost GP later on.

Todt dared to offer Prost number 2 status. And Prost was ok with such conditions.

What's the hell.

Hadn't heard about Prost and Schumacher becoming teammates in 1996, but about Berger and Prost.

I've only read this in Berger's 1998 autobiography. My memory is a bit patchy, but (according to Berger) Ferrari weren't that happy about Alesi come 1995 and were looking for a replacement. They asked Berger what he thought of Prost joining for 1996. Both drivers were very keen on the idea. Half 1995, it became obvious that Schumacher's contract at Benetton was expiring and that they might hire him. Berger understood that any team that might have a shot at contracting Schumacher would at least make him an offer. Around Monaco, Berger was told by Ferrari that "Willi Weber is crazy, he wants $23M; we'll never make a deal". Berger had a clause that guaranteed him that no driver in the team would be paid more than him.

After hearing nothing for a while, Berger told the press in Silverstone "Schumacher has signed for Ferrari", which hadn't been made official and which Berger couldn't know; but the team's reaction made it clear to him that he had guessed correctly. Ferrari still supposed Berger would stay and were quite surprised when he told them in Spa he'd signed for Benetton. Luca di Montezemolo then asked him whom they should hire, and Berger claims "I dropped a few names, Irvine being one of them". Prost no longer mentioned.

So I always thought it was Prost/Berger or Berger/Schumacher for 1996, but never Schumacher/Prost.

Following Senna's death in '94, didn't Prost swear to never race an F1 car gain out of respect?
Could have been an emotional outburst of course.
Don't see any reason why he would want to race in '96, in a contractually-bound number 2 role.

gerry nassar - This is not a Senna v Prost thread.

Awwww, why nooooot?

Anyway, it is difficult to discuss the notion of why Prost would refuse to be No. 2 in a team without mentioning the past, i.e. Senna.

In some ways, it's self evident that a driver of his stature would be loath to accept such a position, but his history with the Brazilian is also an important element of the background.

as65p

Ups, did the Le Professeur accidentically spill the beans on Ferraris driver policy in the MS era? Naughty boy...

You go, Alain.


glorius

It's quite something to have asked Prost to become No. 2 to Schumacher in 96...

Indeed - both from the standpoint that he would have been coming out of retirement as the record-holder for race victories, AND considering that he was on the verge of taking over Ligier. Took some cheek, IMO.

In fact, it was very good of Prost to have kept this to himself for this long.

I'm sure there were quite a few people at Ferrari, Luca included, who might have relished the prospect of putting the shoe on the other foot in AP's case, considering the headgames he played on Mansell.

Considering what a disaster 1996 ended up being for Ferrari (with an engine blowing up on the warm-up lap at France, wow...), it would have been a return with nothing to show for it...

I imagine it would have ended up like a few years earlier: he complains about Ferrari a bit too much in the press, and they can him yet again...

Considering that previous treatment, why did either side even consider it at all?

Considering what a disaster 1996 ended up being for Ferrari (with an engine blowing up on the warm-up lap at France, wow...), it would have been a return with nothing to show for it...

I imagine it would have ended up like a few years earlier: he complains about Ferrari a bit too much in the press, and they can him yet again...

Considering that previous treatment, why did either side even consider it at all?

Because under Jean Todt, the team's management was very different to what it was under Cesare Fiorio and his immediate successors in 1991.

So this number 1-2 driver thingy at Ferrari just cannot be denied anymore...

Who denies it?

Who denies it?

lol I'd have thought that Austria 2002 proved it conclusively!

Who denies it?

No one Denies it.

It is a fact that Schumacher was favoured, but Im sure it is not contractual anywhere.

He was probably offered huge dollars for it which he could have used with Prost GP later on.

exactly i think it was offered but noway he would of accepted its Alain at his games again always was great policically. Todt might of just made a suggestion to test alain but never would it be a reality.

both retired with similar reasons:

prost

For 1994, Senna finally signed with the Williams-Renault team. Prost's contract clause forbidding Senna from joining Williams did not extend to 1994 and Prost retired with one year left on his contract, rather than face the prospect of being a team mate of his greatest rival

schumacher


retired because of raikkonen contract with ferari for 2006!!

Hmmm, you're implying that Prost refused to have a fast team mate as with Schumacher?


Have a little look at Prosts team mates through his career.

John Watson - Race winner (5 wins)
Rene Arnoux - Race winner and one half of Dijon 79 (7 wins)
Niki Lauda - Triple World Champion (25 wins)
Keke Rosberg - World Champion (5 wins)
Ayrton Senna - Triple World Champion (41 wins)
Gerhard Berger - Race winner (10 wins)
Nigel Mansell - World Champion (31 wins)
Jean Alesi - Race winner (1 win)
Damon Hill - World Champion (22 wins)

That's a total of 9 world titles and 147 wins.

Now look at Schumachers

Nelson Piquet - Triple World Champion (23 wins)
Ricardo Patrese - Race winner (6 wins)
Johnny Herbert - Race winner (3 wins)
Eddie Irvine - Race winner (4 wins)
Rubens Barrichello - Race winner (9 wins)
Felipe Massa - Race winner (11 wins)

That's a total of 3 world titles and 56 wins but the vast majority of those stats come from half a season with a 'past his prime' Piquet.

Take out Piquet and it's just 33 wins.

You also have to factor in that Prost actually had a chance to veto Senna but chose to let him in for the good of the team!

I think it's clear that Prost had a very different attitude to team mates than Schumacher.

Hmmm, you're implying that Prost refused to have a fast team mate as with Schumacher?


Have a little look at Prosts team mates through his career.

John Watson - Race winner (5 wins)
Rene Arnoux - Race winner and one half of Dijon 79 (7 wins)
Niki Lauda - Triple World Champion (25 wins)
Keke Rosberg - World Champion (5 wins)
Ayrton Senna - Triple World Champion (41 wins)
Gerhard Berger - Race winner (10 wins)
Nigel Mansell - World Champion (31 wins)
Jean Alesi - Race winner (1 win)
Damon Hill - World Champion (22 wins)

That's a total of 9 world titles and 147 wins.

Now look at Schumachers

Nelson Piquet - Triple World Champion (23 wins)
Ricardo Patrese - Race winner (6 wins)
Johnny Herbert - Race winner (3 wins)
Eddie Irvine - Race winner (4 wins)
Rubens Barrichello - Race winner (9 wins)
Felipe Massa - Race winner (11 wins)

That's a total of 3 world titles and 56 wins but the vast majority of those stats come from half a season with a 'past his prime' Piquet.

Take out Piquet and it's just 33 wins.

You also have to factor in that Prost actually had a chance to veto Senna but chose to let him in for the good of the team!

I think it's clear that Prost had a very different attitude to team mates than Schumacher.

berger-prost??
yes both prost and schumacher had very good cars during careers..less times bad car than ayrton senna good car!!
but ayrton senna beat prost in the same car 26:4 in poles and 14:11 in wins......(sorry 15:11......suzuka 1989!!)
sennas teamates: ....hakkinen, hill, prost....world champions.....deangelis-beat mansell in the same car etc...
Prost actually had a chance to veto Senna but chose to let him in for the good of the team....... when in 1993??

Edited by lafitek, 13 August 2009 - 11:56.

Prost actually had a chance to veto Senna but chose to let him in for the good of the team....... when in 1993??

He was a part in bringing Senna to McLaren in '88.

Prost actually had a chance to veto Senna but chose to let him in for the good of the team....... when in 1993??

No, 1988. McLaren wanted to go for Piquet, Prost thought Senna would be a better choice and said so to the team. Come 1993, I can understand Prost not wanting Senna as a teammate anymore. But that's veering off-topic, there have been plenty of threads on the Senna-Prost issue.

More on-topic, does anyone know when in 1995 this was being planned? I only heard of a Berger-Prost partnership, which was abandoned once Schumacher was hired. How long did it take Ferrari to hire Irvine?

It's hardly a secret that Michael was the contractual no. 1 during the Irvine days, given that Irvine himself openly said as much on a great many occasions and was never censured by the team for doing so.

I have some difficulties to believe any drivers was forced / asked to sign as a contracted no. 2 driver. In other words, it is clearly written in the contract. It would create a lot of problems for the team. What happens if the contracted no. 2 driver is faster than no. 1 driver? Does the team need to slow down the faster no. 2 driver at the expense of team's championship points?

IMO It is a common sense a driver that is seen / expected to be superior than another driver to be a lead driver of the team. Even this could cause uproar within the team, when for example, Lewis managed to beat and take a few wins against Alonso when Alonso was supposed to be a lead driver at McLaren in 2007.

I can't remember Irvine's, Rubens', Massa's quotes, indicating they were contracted no. 2 driver.

Prost never implied he was contracted to be a no. 2 driver. He was only suggested, due to his technical skills, experience etc, to help MS and Ferrari to win the championship.

Prost never implied he was contracted to be a no. 2 driver. He was only suggested, due to his technical skills, experience etc, to help MS and Ferrari to win the championship.

How can you, as a driver, help another driver to win but not be no.2

"A year later, Jean Todt suggested that I become team-mate to Schumacher to help him become champion at Ferrari. I would have been clearly number two, which was ok - I almost drove, but finally I did not, for the same reasons."


What exactly from the above Prost quote you don't understand?

See, many people in this thread claimed nobody would deny MS' no. 1 status, nothing to see here..

And then, along comes Schuperman...

Hmmm, you're implying that Prost refused to have a fast team mate as with Schumacher?


Have a little look at Prosts team mates through his career.

John Watson - Race winner (5 wins)
Rene Arnoux - Race winner and one half of Dijon 79 (7 wins)
Niki Lauda - Triple World Champion (25 wins)
Keke Rosberg - World Champion (5 wins)
Ayrton Senna - Triple World Champion (41 wins)
Gerhard Berger - Race winner (10 wins)
Nigel Mansell - World Champion (31 wins)
Jean Alesi - Race winner (1 win)
Damon Hill - World Champion (22 wins)

That's a total of 9 world titles and 147 wins.

Now look at Schumachers

Nelson Piquet - Triple World Champion (23 wins)
Ricardo Patrese - Race winner (6 wins)
Johnny Herbert - Race winner (3 wins)
Eddie Irvine - Race winner (4 wins)
Rubens Barrichello - Race winner (9 wins)
Felipe Massa - Race winner (11 wins)

That's a total of 3 world titles and 56 wins but the vast majority of those stats come from half a season with a 'past his prime' Piquet.

Take out Piquet and it's just 33 wins.

You also have to factor in that Prost actually had a chance to veto Senna but chose to let him in for the good of the team!

I think it's clear that Prost had a very different attitude to team mates than Schumacher.

Excuse me,but only Lauda and Keke had won championships before they partnered Prost. That's 3 titles,between the two of them,nowhere close to the nine you mention,and wipes away a significant portion of the 147 wins as well. While Piquet was already three time WDC when Schumacher came to Benetton,who was still a rookie.

This isn't saying anything about Alain,but please don't misuse facts to suit your needs.

Hmmm, you're implying that Prost refused to have a fast team mate as with Schumacher?


Have a little look at Prosts team mates through his career.

John Watson - Race winner (5 wins)
Rene Arnoux - Race winner and one half of Dijon 79 (7 wins)
Niki Lauda - Triple World Champion (25 wins)
Keke Rosberg - World Champion (5 wins)
Ayrton Senna - Triple World Champion (41 wins)
Gerhard Berger - Race winner (10 wins)
Nigel Mansell - World Champion (31 wins)
Jean Alesi - Race winner (1 win)
Damon Hill - World Champion (22 wins)

That's a total of 9 world titles and 147 wins.

Now look at Schumachers

Nelson Piquet - Triple World Champion (23 wins)
Ricardo Patrese - Race winner (6 wins)
Johnny Herbert - Race winner (3 wins)
Eddie Irvine - Race winner (4 wins)
Rubens Barrichello - Race winner (9 wins)
Felipe Massa - Race winner (11 wins)

That's a total of 3 world titles and 56 wins but the vast majority of those stats come from half a season with a 'past his prime' Piquet.

Take out Piquet and it's just 33 wins.

You also have to factor in that Prost actually had a chance to veto Senna but chose to let him in for the good of the team!

I think it's clear that Prost had a very different attitude to team mates than Schumacher.

there's a catch 22 though.

Suppose MS wasn't as good as he was, so Eddie Irvine won in 99 and say Rubens won in 2002 and 2004, that'd produce vastly different outlook and stats for MS's teammates. In other words it is most certain that MS made all drivers look weaker than they really were. There's just 1 WDC per year and just that many races, MS took lion shares of both leaving just a little to divide amongst the rest.

Edited by ZZMS, 13 August 2009 - 19:31.

How can you, as a driver, help another driver to win but not be no.2

"A year later, Jean Todt suggested that I become team-mate to Schumacher to help him become champion at Ferrari. I would have been clearly number two, which was ok - I almost drove, but finally I did not, for the same reasons."


What exactly from the above Prost quote you don't understand?

See, many people in this thread claimed nobody would deny MS' no. 1 status, nothing to see here..

Due to the benefit of hindsight, it is always easier to claim MS' no. 1 status.

My stand is clear, yes certain driver has no. 1 status within the team. But it not a contractual, like you claimed. It is decided by the timesheet, the driver that stands the best bet to win the championship and to a certain extent, due to unforeseen circumstances.

Timesheet is to see which driver is the faster, both in quals and races.

The best bet. Example, Mika vs Coulthard Australia 1998, MS vs Rubens Austria 2002.

Unforeseen circumstances. Example, MS vs Irvine Malaysia 1999.

Why Prost stated "I would have been clearly number two"? IMO He was out of the races for 2 years. He was 40++ of age. Exactly what MS is now in facing Kimi at his prime. Prost was not expected to win races, but his vast experience could have helped Ferrari and MS in particular, to win races.

For the sake of arguments, IF he were faster than MS, no one could have stopped him.

I would be glad, IF one day, Irvine, Ruben, Massa, will tell us, they were contracted no. 2. I have read many quotes from them, none indicating they were contracted no. 2. In fact, they were free to race MS. They were free to qualify higher than MS.

No. 1 status for MS, yes. Because he, as I incline to believe, according to Moss, his superiority over the rest was so huge, it was unseen in the history of F1. And not because all his teammates were contracted no. 2.

By the way, do you really believe his teammates were contracted no. 2? In other words, they were not allowed to outqualify and outrace him at the expense of the team?

Edited by Schuperman, 13 August 2009 - 19:50.

Due to the benefit of hindsight, it is always easier to claim MS' no. 1 status.

My stand is clear, yes certain driver has no. 1 status within the team. But it not a contractual, like you claimed. It is decided by the timesheet, the driver that stands the best bet to win the championship and to a certain extent, due to unforeseen circumstances.

Timesheet is to see which driver is the faster, both in quals and races.

The best bet. Example, Mika vs Coulthard Australia 1998, MS vs Rubens Austria 2002.

Unforeseen circumstances. Example, MS vs Irvine Malaysia 1999.

Why Prost stated "I would have been clearly number two"? IMO He was out of the races for 2 years. He was 40++ of age. Exactly what MS is now in facing Kimi at his prime. Prost was not expected to win races, but his vast experience could have helped Ferrari and MS in particular, to win races.

For the sake of arguments, IF he were faster than MS, no one could have stopped him.

I would be glad, IF one day, Irvine, Ruben, Massa, will tell us, they were contracted no. 2. I have read many quotes from them, none indicating they were contracted no. 2. In fact, they were free to race MS. They were free to qualify higher than MS.

No. 1 status for MS, yes. Because he, as I incline to believe, according to Moss, his superiority over the rest was so huge, it was unseen in the history of F1. And not because all his teammates were contracted no. 2.

By the way, do you really believe his teammates were contracted no. 2? In other words, they were not allowed to outqualify and outrace him at the expense of the team?

Sigh....

It seems as if Schumacher's almost return has lured all his fanboyz out from under their rocks....

Since you obviously missed this when Schumacher was driving, Schumacher was usually good enough (and got the means to be so) to outqualify and outrace his teammates. On those few occasions when Rubens did outdo the great man (Irvine wasn't really good enough to do so) Schumacher would either nick Barrichello's chassis or Rubens would have to give up the place if Schumacher was still in the race and/or could benefit....

And Irvine has never made a secret of his #2 status. He also acknowledges that Schumacher was simply better more often than not. And yes, Ferrari did ask him to let Schumacher past (his own words) but that was not that often because Schumacher was usually faster.

All of this is not exactly a secret. Even a superficial search got have gotten you this information.

Due to the benefit of hindsight, it is always easier to claim MS' no. 1 status.

My stand is clear, yes certain driver has no. 1 status within the team. But it not a contractual, like you claimed. It is decided by the timesheet...

It's Prost that claims, not me. And he clearly states that it would not have been decided by the timesheets, but beforehand.

Are you really unable to grasp that simplest of statements? Does it really hurt that much?

Anyway, nobody sane would deny that MS was a better driver to all his teammates. Just as nobody sane should deny that he enjoyed massive preferential treatment. But there you go...

Why Prost stated "I would have been clearly number two"? IMO He was out of the races for 2 years. He was 40++ of age. Exactly what MS is now in facing Kimi at his prime. Prost was not expected to win races, but his vast experience could have helped Ferrari and MS in particular, to win races.

That whole paragraph is just you imagination at work, trying to twist things to suit your beliefs. Nothing of that can be taken from Prosts words, sorry.

By the way, do you really believe his teammates were contracted no. 2? In other words, they were not allowed to outqualify and outrace him at the expense of the team?

"Outqualify" is almost impossible to control and ultimately meaningless anyway. In the races, the last of MS' teammates whom I watched racing him was Martin Brundle.

And it's not at the expense of the team, but precisely the opposite. It's the way Todt (and also Briatore) like to structure their campaigns, putting everything behind one star driver and making him feel as comfortable as possible. You certainly can't argue with the success of that method.

Relax, take your medicine.

It's Prost that claims, not me. And he clearly states that it would not have been decided by the timesheets, but beforehand.

Well, no, he doesn't use any form of the word "contract", does he?

Are you really unable to grasp that simplest of statements? Does it really hurt that much?

Try that question on yourself.

Anyway, nobody sane would deny that MS was a better driver to all his teammates. Just as nobody sane should deny that he enjoyed massive preferential treatment. But there you go...

That whole paragraph is just you imagination at work, trying to twist things to suit your beliefs. Nothing of that can be taken from Prosts words, sorry.

Neither is your opinion supported (note: nor denied) by Prost's words...

"Outqualify" is almost impossible to control and ultimately meaningless anyway. In the races, the last of MS' teammates whom I watched racing him was Martin Brundle.

Didn't watch too many races, huh?

And it's not at the expense of the team, but precisely the opposite. It's the way Todt (and also Briatore) like to structure their campaigns, putting everything behind one star driver and making him feel as comfortable as possible. You certainly can't argue with the success of that method.

You certainly can't argue with the success of trying to twist things to suit your beliefs...
It's the word "contract" that's the point here. Focus.
As I said, medicine can help.

It's Prost that claims, not me. And he clearly states that it would not have been decided by the timesheets, but beforehand.

Are you really unable to grasp that simplest of statements? Does it really hurt that much?

Anyway, nobody sane would deny that MS was a better driver to all his teammates. Just as nobody sane should deny that he enjoyed massive preferential treatment. But there you go...

IMO It was just the way Prost dowplays his chances. What I refute is, it was written in his contract. IF it was, according to him, he was about agreeing to sign the deal (in the previous version of report) but decided to call it off at a very last moment, I am sure Prost will say it very clearly.

Downplaying one own chance happens in any other sport. Nadal, being exhausted after a semi-final marathon, before Australia Final this year, downplayed his chances against Federer. Many of golfers, downplay their own chances against Woods.

Simple statement? I have never read any quotes from any drivers, particularly MS' teammates, they were contracted to be no. 2. Yes, of course he enjoyed Benetton's and Ferrari's massive preferential treatment. Because he was their leading driver. He won races when many of his teammates failed to collect a point. He won them WDC when his teammates were not even in contention.

It doesn't hurt me to the slightest. In fact, as I said, I would be very happy, IF any of his teammates will tell the world, they signed a contract that stated clearly they were no. 2 driver. To date none of them says it. Rubens and Massa clearly denied it.

Having said that, I give you another example. IMO Hamilton at McLaren and Alonso at Renault, enjoy a massive preferential treatment. Not because their teammates are contracted no. 2 driver. But, they delivered the results. They are their best chances to win races and WDC, being proven in the track. It is not written in the contract.

The only sport I know that has a written contract is Tour de France. Though it was written in his contract, in this year TdF, Lance was still given a chance until it was considered over, to challenge for the title.

That whole paragraph is just you imagination at work, trying to twist things to suit your beliefs. Nothing of that can be taken from Prosts words, sorry.

"Outqualify" is almost impossible to control and ultimately meaningless anyway. In the races, the last of MS' teammates whom I watched racing him was Martin Brundle.

And it's not at the expense of the team, but precisely the opposite. It's the way Todt (and also Briatore) like to structure their campaigns, putting everything behind one star driver and making him feel as comfortable as possible. You certainly can't argue with the success of that method.

It is my understanding reading in the context which he referred to what MS is now. It can also be argued, nothing in his words stated it was in a contract. My understanding, it was merely a suggestion (verbal) by Todt, to help (especially in testing, set up, technical feedback etc.). Nothing suggests Prost was not allowed to race him.

And now you claim qualifying position is meaningless?

And, if the policy of putting everything behind one star driver, is a success, I am sure almost every team would copy them. In fact I have read an article, that stated LdM brought Rubens in 2000 was to race MS, though Rubens wasn't MS' preferences. And now you claimed, except for Brundle being the last driver, they were not allowed to race MS. LdM didn't like the idea of too much dependent on MS to deliver.

To me the interesting info is that in 1997 Prost showed up as a team owner. He bought the team from Ligier sometime in mid-/late 1996.

So in 96 Prost instead of racing himself, opted to buy a team.

Well, no, he doesn't use any form of the word "contract", does he?

He refered to his talks with Jean Todt and their mutual understanding that he would have joined as the "the clear no.2".

Which perfectly fits this definition of the term "contract":

an agreement between two or more parties for the doing or not doing of something specified

It's the word "contract" that's the point here.

No, it's not the word thats the point, but the meaning behind it.

The only way for the Schufosi to dismiss Prosts, in this case, very clear statement is to call him an outright liar. Anyone?

He refered to his talks with Jean Todt and their mutual understanding that he would have joined as the "the clear no.2".

Which perfectly fits this definition of the term "contract":

an agreement between two or more parties for the doing or not doing of something specified



No, it's not the word thats the point, but the meaning behind it.

The only way for the Schufosi to dismiss Prosts, in this case, very clear statement is to call him an outright liar. Anyone?

All drivers are outright liars when it suits them, Prost is not exception. That doesn't mean he lied here or there. I just state that mnore-less all people are ambivalent and willing to adjust the truth and the facts to suit their agenda. Prost is no exception, Senna was exception, Schumacher is no exception.

But the question is, what do you all think the 41 year old Prost, was past his prime could have don in a bad car like the 1996 Ferrari? Could he have emulated Irvine's results? Do better? Or worse?

GC

To me the interesting info is that in 1997 Prost showed up as a team owner. He bought the team from Ligier sometime in mid-/late 1996.

So in 96 Prost instead of racing himself, opted to buy a team.

From what I understand of the situation, Prost didn't officially buy the team until the beginning of 1997, not until he had reassurances that Peugeot will be onboard for 3 years starting in 1998. In 1996, he was McLaren's test driver but was presumably trying to get a better understanding of how a successful team is operated.