Rosberg versus Prost
#1
Posted 01 August 2013 - 12:53
Advertisement
#2
Posted 01 August 2013 - 13:02
1) Allegedly McLaren did not want to follow Keke's wants in regard to car setup, and forced him to drive cars catered to Prost's tastes.
2) The fire did not burn as hot as it had, I think that all drivers who have mentally prepared themselves to retire are showing less overall pace than they used to.
c) Prost was as a driver were superior to Keke.
#3
Posted 01 August 2013 - 13:11
#4
Posted 01 August 2013 - 13:49
We've already discussed this ad nauseam several times in TNF already, there's really nothing more to add, try a search.
Try to lighten up.
#5
Posted 01 August 2013 - 14:03
1) Allegedly McLaren did not want to follow Keke's wants in regard to car setup, and forced him to drive cars catered to Prost's tastes.
But why? Was Prost number 1?
I read in Prüller's Grand Prix story that dennis hat the idea of three different drivers as McLaren champions in three years in a row. So that nobody can say, that was Lauda, that was Prost, that was Rosberg but say that that was McLaren.
#6
Posted 01 August 2013 - 14:21
But why? Was Prost number 1?
I read in Prüller's Grand Prix story that dennis hat the idea of three different drivers as McLaren champions in three years in a row. So that nobody can say, that was Lauda, that was Prost, that was Rosberg but say that that was McLaren.
As I wrote allegedly, I have personally always questioned any idea that teams will spend millions and then insist that the drivers have to perform according to some preset conditions meaning the driver is set to 'fail'. Most likely there were preferences, and inherent designs which made Keke have a harder time to extract the most from his car.
#7
Posted 01 August 2013 - 14:46
#8
Posted 01 August 2013 - 16:17
I remember Niki Lauda saying, after he decided to retire and his successor Rosberg was chosen, that Keke will be a hard time against Prost, because Rosberg tends to change the direction of the car during a corner often, which Prost didn´t... (I don´t know, if I could translate it in the right way)
I translate it as Prost was much more boring to watch...
#9
Posted 01 August 2013 - 21:49
#10
Posted 01 August 2013 - 22:27
Forgive me but i'm going from memory here, I seem to recall a story from pre season testing in Rio, where John Barnard had given Keke specific instructions to take the first few laps steady, and then watched in horror as his brand new car went spinning off, almost immediately, in a great cloud of dust into the barriers! I think Keke was finnished at that point as far as Barnard was concerned.
Which makes no sense, as in zero sense what so ever.
#11
Posted 02 August 2013 - 13:29
Which makes no sense, as in zero sense what so ever.
The point of the story is, that Kekes relationship with Barnard got off on the wrong foot from the start. That makes sence to me!
#12
Posted 02 August 2013 - 14:04
Prost was one of several such drivers then and now, Senna was obviously another, who had the team built around them and Rosberg was bound to come off second best. Alternatively you could always cause the maximum possible discontent by combining the two absolutely top drivers as indeed McLaren did with the inevitable result.
Senna and Schumacher damaged the F1 careers of every driver they shared (sic) a team with, regardless of ability, but in this instance as others have noted Rosberg's pace had faded a tad by 1986 whilst Prost was still at his peak and the car was suited to his driving style.
#13
Posted 02 August 2013 - 15:03
The point of the story is, that Kekes relationship with Barnard got off on the wrong foot from the start. That makes sence to me!
Not to me. A former WDC and multiple Grand Prox winner, and him binning the car on first test is reason for a designer to lose all faith in the driver? I am sorry but makes no sense as in zero sense what so ever.
#14
Posted 02 August 2013 - 15:12
Rosberg himself said: 'I thought I was the fastest and best driver of the world... untill Prost became my teammate.' The FIn never even hinted, as far as I know, that McLaren hindered him, in that aspect.
#15
Posted 02 August 2013 - 15:59
But given a fully developed masterpiece from Barnard or Nichols or Oatley Prost's delicate sensitivity and patience were the right complement.
I watched 1986 in agony thinking if only Rosberg had stayed with Williams.
The damnable thing is why didn't Keke get as good an opportunity as Villeneuve did as soon as Villeneuve did? i.e. 1977
#16
Posted 02 August 2013 - 21:07
I don't want to get into a big thing about this, it was just a story I remembered hearing and thought it relevant to this thread, but here is a quote from Keke himself. " I wanted to work for Mclaren, I knew Ron well, I knew a lot of people in the team, Mansour, Alain and so forth so to me it was fairly easy to go there-except John Barnard did'nt really make my arrival easy, or did'nt want to help me a lot"Not to me. A former WDC and multiple Grand Prox winner, and him binning the car on first test is reason for a designer to lose all faith in the driver? I am sorry but makes no sense as in zero sense what so ever.
#17
Posted 02 August 2013 - 22:00
#18
Posted 03 August 2013 - 09:52
I don't want to get into a big thing about this, it was just a story I remembered hearing and thought it relevant to this thread, but here is a quote from Keke himself. " I wanted to work for Mclaren, I knew Ron well, I knew a lot of people in the team, Mansour, Alain and so forth so to me it was fairly easy to go there-except John Barnard did'nt really make my arrival easy, or did'nt want to help me a lot"
Which is not the same as McLaren's chief designer not wanting to work with Keke after the first test. I do agree that some drivers are more likeable than others, I am certain that some drivers rub some of management and design people the wrong way in many respects, but I am equally convinced that no team will sacrifice points and position in the WDC and WCC through not listening at all to their driver.
Keke was obviously a quality driver, he had won races, he had won a WDC. He was not seen as the equal to Prost by McLaren and once he started racing for McLaren they saw for themselves that he was not the equal to Prost. There however zero sense in not supporting a driver, and there is zero sense for forcing a driver to race a car with settings contrary to what the driver prefer. I can understand if a cars general makeup and setup have inherent behavior which runs contrary to what the driver prefer, I just can not see the team not allowing a driver to use his preferred setup.
#19
Posted 03 August 2013 - 12:58
They aren't saying "Oh, that's a good idea actually, but screw him". The attitude becomes "I wish he'd stop complaining and just get on with it".
Advertisement
#20
Posted 03 August 2013 - 13:00
Sure there is. If the other guy is performing on Setting A you're less likely to explore settings B, C, etc. Especially if the other driver got off on the wrong foot from the start.
They aren't saying "Oh, that's a good idea actually, but screw him". The attitude becomes "I wish he'd stop complaining and just get on with it".
That part I get, albeit not agree with but I am not running a F1 team so what do I know.
But first test? No sense.
#21
Posted 03 August 2013 - 13:17
#22
Posted 03 August 2013 - 14:18
#23
Posted 03 August 2013 - 14:27
#24
Posted 03 August 2013 - 14:31
I think you have lowered expectations of how a top driver should conduct themselves. Going out and promptly dumping the car, especially when the team told you to take it easy doesn't say "you've signed a worthy world champion" but "you signed a rookie who doesn't listen".
We disagree.
#25
Posted 03 August 2013 - 14:32
#26
Posted 03 August 2013 - 14:37
Probably because I don't idolise drivers and I see their human frailties. Just like a team member will have.
You process an amazing character.
#27
Posted 03 August 2013 - 14:41
How can you be surprised that a team would want to stick to their design/settings and not indulge a driver's requests/complaints? Particularly when that team had been winning and the other current driver can perform with those settings? It's a story as old as Formula 1. Particularly Formula 1, which is the least driver-friendly series.
How can you be surprised that a driver, even a 'great' can rub the team the wrong way?
How can you be surprised that this would affect how the team members treat that driver?
Hell I can give you another example, who even drove for McLaren. Juan Montoya.
Though "Oh they wouldn't give me the settings I wanted" is really, really high on the list of driver excuses. I'd like to see engineers/designers be more driver friendly but drivers still have a long long way to go to be more team friendly. It's far easier to adjust a driver than a car. 'Driving style' is just another way of saying habits. And often they are bad habits.
#28
Posted 03 August 2013 - 15:06
#29
Posted 03 August 2013 - 15:17
I think it is a credit to both Prost and Rosberg that despite this season they both got on and were friends.
#30
Posted 03 August 2013 - 15:27
#31
Posted 03 August 2013 - 17:57
Well you don't seem to be listening, or at least not very imaginative.
How can you be surprised that a team would want to stick to their design/settings and not indulge a driver's requests/complaints? Particularly when that team had been winning and the other current driver can perform with those settings? It's a story as old as Formula 1. Particularly Formula 1, which is the least driver-friendly series.
How can you be surprised that a driver, even a 'great' can rub the team the wrong way?
How can you be surprised that this would affect how the team members treat that driver?
Hell I can give you another example, who even drove for McLaren. Juan Montoya.
Though "Oh they wouldn't give me the settings I wanted" is really, really high on the list of driver excuses. I'd like to see engineers/designers be more driver friendly but drivers still have a long long way to go to be more team friendly. It's far easier to adjust a driver than a car. 'Driving style' is just another way of saying habits. And often they are bad habits.
Try pay attention and argue to the part I do not agree with instead of a usual Stonefeld of preaching from a high chair about something different.
#32
Posted 03 August 2013 - 18:10
Meantime, he began getting acquainted with Rosberg, the 1982 world champion, veteran of four seasons at McLaren’s chief opposition: Williams. Mention Rosberg to Barnard today and he instantly chuckles: “Keke! Look, contrary to what people imagine, I liked Keke a lot. He was great fun. But his way of driving that car just didn’t work as effectively as Alain Prost’s style – and we had evolved that car very much through Alain. He would set it up in a way that to any other driver would feel like it had massive understeer, but he had a way of getting the car into the corner early, which for a turbo was fantastic, because it meant he could get early on the power and we could give him some traction.
“Keke, by contrast, was last of the late brakers and really liked to turn the car very quickly. To do that you need a set-up that’s a bit light on rear grip – and that justwasn’t the way with these cars.”
It must be said too that their relationship didn’t get off on the best foot with Rosberg’s pre-season test at Rio. “It was a brand-new car,” recalls Barnard. “He put out his cigarette, got in the car, went hell for leather on the out-lap and put it off at the end of the straight. We were standing there open-mouthed. He came back in and I think gauged my mood by looking at my face and slunk off out of my way!” Again, Barnard tells this with roars of laughter. Obviously, he didn’t find it so funny at the time.
As it turned out, that opening weekend at Rio was one of only four times in the season that Keke would outqualify Prost, though both cars were to retire in the race. “We were up against the Hondas [powering Williams] by then,” recalls Barnard, “and they were really coming on strong with their development. I’d basically stretched out the same basic car into its third season for ’86, and not only were we lacking in the engine development, but the design really needed a serious look at too. In my mind I was going to concentrate on doing that from the middle of the season.”
Meanwhile, Rosberg’s season was going by in a blur of mediocrity: fourth, fifth and second at Jerez, Imola and Monte Carlo, with Prost scoring a third and two victories in the same races. Rosberg was stunned by Prost’s speed, could simply not comprehend how anyone could drive a racing car set up like this even remotely quickly – and Barnard was not up for changing it. Initially, at any rate. After a further poor sequence – two retirements and a brace of fourths – Barnard acquiesced to his driver’s pleas: “We did a big test atBrands Hatch, and went through all the set-up options and looked very carefully at the result. I think he was happier with it.”
Indeed, at Brands for the next race Keke qualified fifth, one place ahead of Prost, and at Hockenheim a couple of weeks later he put the car on pole, with Prost alongside him on the front row. But it was against the underlying form, as the Williams-Hondas were by now much the quicker cars.
#33
Posted 03 August 2013 - 19:15
#34
Posted 06 August 2013 - 03:00
#35
Posted 06 August 2013 - 09:31
Rosberg transfer to McLaren was high profile at the time, it was big news and they say the salary they paid for Keke was high but the biggest transfer was Piquet from Brabham to Williams. Piquet became the best paid driver in F1 in 1986. To me it was at that time a mistery why Keke didn't perform stronger as he did. That he drove a car that suited Prost's driving style more is probably the reason and maybe also that he was thinking about retiring. Still Rosberg drove fantastic in his final race in Adelaide for McLaren, pitty he didn't win that one. It would have been great had he won his final F1 race.
He was never going to win it though, my understanding is they turned the boost up and let him go for it, on the understanding that he would run out fuel
#36
Posted 06 August 2013 - 10:55
#37
Posted 06 August 2013 - 11:55
setting a hare off to run the hounds ragged wasn't a new ploy in 1986. From memory, Prost had to win by more than a few spots over the Williams duo to take the championship, and it seemed highly unlikely at the time. I don't think that Rosberg's pace made the difference (Prost's early tyre stop - an early problem wasn't it? - set up the victory rather than the Williams team being drawn into pursuit of Rosberg, but it never hurts to plan to play every card in your hand. After all, what's the most outrageous thing that could happen? The opposition falter and hand your team its third consecutive WDC?Why would they do that?
I'd like to think that it was an enjoyable way for Keke to spend his last F1 race, striding away from the field... I felt it a shame at the time that he hadn't realised that the tyre was still holding pressure when he pulled up. I would've thought it conceivable that he may have nursed it back to the pits for a change of tyre, but like Stormin' Norman Beechey apparently asserted: it's not a pity if you don't finish a race, if you're miles in front when she blows.
Edited by Hank the Deuce, 06 August 2013 - 12:01.
#38
Posted 06 August 2013 - 17:00
I felt it a shame at the time that he hadn't realised that the tyre was still holding pressure when he pulled up
I don't think he even knew there was a tyre problem at all until he got out of the car.
Edited by E.B., 06 August 2013 - 17:00.
#39
Posted 07 August 2013 - 00:42
He was never going to win it though, my understanding is they turned the boost up and let him go for it, on the understanding that he would run out fuel
I've never heard that about '86. But it was true for '88 with Berger.