71 replies to this topic

[Boing 2]

http://www.talkingab...lain-prost.html

 

Nice blog about Prost for anyone interested.

[mdaclarke]

Formula 1 in the late 80's and early 90's was such a golden age.  Piquet, Prost and Senna.  Three amazing drivers 

[RubberKubrick]

Formula 1 in the late 80's and early 90's was such a golden age. Piquet, Prost and Senna. Three amazing drivers

Three triple champions racing in the same race (in Suzuka1991 from the moment when Mansell retired and Senna became champion). Doesn't happen too often, does it.

[sennafan24]

 Piquet, Prost and Senna.  Three amazing drivers 

And Mansell. Which makes for 4 amazing drivers. 

 

It was a golden age. Even though today's grid has more depth from top to bottom, I still rate those days as having slightly better top drivers. 

[Collombin]

In retrospect 1985ish was better. Piquet was still amazing (he certainly wasn't that in the late 80s/early 90s), and the likes of Rosberg and Lauda were around too. Prost meanwhile had the raw pace and tactical savvy combo at a higher combined level than at any other stage of his career.

[sennafan24]

In retrospect 1985ish was better. Piquet was still amazing (he certainly wasn't that in the late 80s/early 90s), and the likes of Rosberg and Lauda were around too. Prost meanwhile had the raw pace and tactical savvy combo at a higher combined level than at any other stage of his career.

Yeah, in terms of raw names, 1985 was stacked at the top-end. I watched Portugal 1985 back recently and noticed that. 

 

But although Piquet was better in those days, wasn't Lauda at the end of the road? Plus, I always understood that Mansell only came into his own properly after his first win. You could also argue that Senna improved after 1985, and was at his strongest in the late 80's and early 90's. 

 

So it is quite hard to weigh-up. 

[Juan Kerr]

Prost in '85 was brillliant, talk about stealth, patience, pace and confidence up against Senna, Piquet, Mansell, Rosberg, Lauda, Alboreto. The way he had no chance of turning the engine up to match the pace of the others and kept his cool doing his own thing in the races was one of the stand-out performances in F1 ever.

[Craven Morehead]

 

 

[Craven Morehead]

one more:

 

 

Would that such days would come again to McLaren...

[DS27]

Looking at their faces, you would think they were facing a season driving this years McLaren..

[noikeee]

Lauda just got lucky in 1984. I know people like the narrative of the wily old Lauda using his cunning to beat the youthful Prost who was faster but not as worldly wise. But the evidence doesn't stack up.

Similarly, Piquet was just lucky in 1987 and to be honest Prost in 1989.

 

Agreed. There really was a lot of the "wrong man winning" in the 80s due to reliability. This is one of those details that risks getting forgotten as time goes by, because it's politically incorrect to say it (a champion is a champion).

 

I don't think it's happened ever since, but we got really close last year again. Seems to be a thing when you have a very dominant car and two drivers that aren't miles apart but where there's still a typically quicker guy. All it takes then is for that guy to have a couple DNFs more...

[John B]

At the forefront of a dynamic period of F1, from the turbo Renaults to the rivalry with Senna.
3 of the races that come to mind:
South Africa 1982 - coming back from a lap down
Monaco 1986 - dominating from pole
France 1988 - won long battle with Senna

Unreliability, luck (half points at Monaco 84) and the odd mistake or two cost several more titles before his first.

[garoidb]

Lauda just got lucky in 1984. I know people like the narrative of the wily old Lauda using his cunning to beat the youthful Prost who was faster but not as worldly wise. But the evidence doesn't stack up.

Similarly, Piquet was just lucky in 1987 and to be honest Prost in 1989.

 

Piquet was unlucky in 1987 to have a serious crash with lasting symptoms early in the season. He also had shocking reliability in 1984. He was on pole position 9 times that year, and should have been in the hunt for the title. Lauda, of course, was the beneficiary and I still remember Nelson drawing alongside Niki after Estoril 1984 to check he had won and applaud him.

 

Lauda himself had a particularly unlucky year earlier in his career, and Prost had several somewhat unlucky seasons. I have posted before about my observation that very few drivers have been serious contenders for a WDC on more than one occasion, but never actually won one (Stirling Moss being the main example, Ronnie Peterson another). Lauda, Piquet and Prost all contended for the WDC in seasons where they did not win, and any balanced view on how lucky their achievements were have to take those seasons into account too.  

[John B]

And Prost returns to victory lane- with Nicolas at the Miami formula E today.

[RubberKubrick]

Agreed. There really was a lot of the "wrong man winning" in the 80s due to reliability. This is one of those details that risks getting forgotten as time goes by, because it's politically incorrect to say it (a champion is a champion).

I don't think it's happened ever since, but we got really close last year again. Seems to be a thing when you have a very dominant car and two drivers that aren't miles apart but where there's still a typically quicker guy. All it takes then is for that guy to have a couple DNFs more...

And in that case, it depends whether the teammate (like Prost in 1989) of that typically quicker guy is someone who slam dunks the given opportunities (like in the USA, Silverstone, Monza) when the typically quicker guy dnfs because of many mechanical issues or who is a driver who simply wasn't good enough to slam dunk such situations when they have been presented to him on a silver plate (like Webber in 2010 in Australia, South Korea).

Edited by RubberKubrick, 15 March 2015 - 11:36.

[PlatenGlass]

Piquet was unlucky in 1987 to have a serious crash with lasting symptoms early in the season. He also had shocking reliability in 1984. He was on pole position 9 times that year, and should have been in the hunt for the title. Lauda, of course, was the beneficiary and I still remember Nelson drawing alongside Niki after Estoril 1984 to check he had won and applaud him.
 
Lauda himself had a particularly unlucky year earlier in his career, and Prost had several somewhat unlucky seasons. I have posted before about my observation that very few drivers have been serious contenders for a WDC on more than one occasion, but never actually won one (Stirling Moss being the main example, Ronnie Peterson another). Lauda, Piquet and Prost all contended for the WDC in seasons where they did not win, and any balanced view on how lucky their achievements were have to take those seasons into account too.

Well, I wasn't making an argument about how many titles each driver should have won over their careers, just about drivers being lucky in particular years, and Lauda was very lucky in 1984. On Piquet, he had poor reliability, but the Brabham wasn't generally a match for the McLaren in the races anyway, so it would have been a stretch for him to take the title.

Also, in 1987, I've heard it a lot that the accident at San Marino affected Piquet, but I would argue that Mansell tended to have the edge anyway, and I'm not sure what the evidence is that it slowed him down.

[Collombin]

Piquet should have hit the wall a year earlier, I might have believed him then.

Speaking of 1984, would the best x rule have treated Prost's Kyalami 2nd as a better result than his Monaco win? Presumably yes, but it would be interesting to see the exact wording. Best scores or best results?

[TIPO61]

Best of Birthdays. FORZA Alain!

[piket]

Well, I wasn't making an argument about how many titles each driver should have won over their careers, just about drivers being lucky in particular years, and Lauda was very lucky in 1984. On Piquet, he had poor reliability, but the Brabham wasn't generally a match for the McLaren in the races anyway, so it would have been a stretch for him to take the title.

Also, in 1987, I've heard it a lot that the accident at San Marino affected Piquet, but I would argue that Mansell tended to have the edge anyway, and I'm not sure what the evidence is that it slowed him down.

Sorry, I know last post here was a year ago. I was having a bit of Prost apprecation day in browsing threads on this forum, but I found your question interesting. I have recently rewatched 86 and 87 seasons so I have a bit of information for you, off course if you are interested.

 

In 1986 their qualie matchup was 8-8. Mansell outqualified Nelson first time in Monaco, dreadful session for Piquet, I believe there were some car issues, the diff was exaggerated. After Brands hatch points difference was 18 points. Now, I would argue that Mansell deserved the lead in the championship at that moment, but the reason for that diff was two turbo failures for Nelson (Belgium 1st and Spain 2nd) while running in front of Nigel. In the same period Nigel profited in Belgium, winning after a spin and in Britain (braking a driveshaft and being lucky cause of the restart).

 

In second half of the season Piquet had dominant displays in Hungary, Italy and Germany and if I didnt know any better I would say the season had all the makings of another 81 and 83 comeback. That is up until Mexico. the strangest Piquet race in a Wiliiams for sure and still bit of a mystery for me.

Ok, at the half point of the race Piquet is in the lead of the race, he lapped Mansell in the process (Nigel had a awful start, he was 19 th after the first lap, I think he was in a neutral gear or second at the lights). After that Piquet makes a stop and soon makes another one, Mansell later unlaps himself and ends up right behind him, 5th place, Piquet 4th.

 

This is the strange part: Piquet needed one set of tyres for the first half of the race, but he needed three sets of tyres for the remaining half. Strange as hell, I never actually found out what was the problem. Perhaps, weird set of tyres or perhaps something like the Prost case in 88 or 89 when Mclaren gave him the wrong set.

 

To summarize, there was nothing between them all season, splitting quallies and races in my opinion. Totally even, I would say, with one detail. I would say that Piquet had less reliabilitiy, just enough for Mansell to be that one point or three in front of him.

 

Ok you said that Mansell had the edge before Imola. I would say differently, In say, 9 races before Imola Piquet was better placed than Mansell in 6 of them.Nelson was in better form,

 

There are clear results supporting his injury excuse someone mentioned before. After Imola Piquet had 4 devastatingly poor qual showings. Belgium, Monaco, Detroit, France (all +1,5 seconds from Mansell) cleary struggling with braking zones, concentration during pitstops exc.)

Their qual head was 4-9 to Mansell in whole season. Out of those four wins Piquet IMHO won only Britain and Austria on track, italy was won with the active car and in Spain he just outsmarted Mansell (check out that story, its hillarious, from Nelson perspective naturally).

 

 

So, was there a serious injury?  I would say yes. From a man who was completely even in racing and qualy with Mansell year before, he started misjudging braking zones and lost a lot of raw pace. Was it a long lasting effect, no, I think Piquet rethought his driving style by the end of that season and found a way to minimize damage from practice in to smarter, more professional driving than he did in 1986.

 

Hope I didnt bore you too much. I guess after seeing all that footage I needed someone to tell it to.

But one hell of a season that 1986, five fantastic drivers, their unique style, fantastic cars and a cracking finale.

 

Well, when I am here already, happy 61st Alain. Truly the best driver won in 1986.

Edited by piket, 11 April 2016 - 20:48.

[LeClerc]

Piquet is my favorite driver of all time. A stone cold acerbic asshole, but never pretending to be anything but that. Oh, and balls!

[PlayboyRacer]

Piquet is absurdly underrated simply because of his personality and the fact he didn't give a **** about his rivals, what others thought of him, of his opinions etc. In his prime he was supremely quick in the insane turbo era with balls of steel. As a triple World Champion he receives nowhere near enough kudos... 1987 does not help either given Mansell was quicker of the two and, IMO, Piquet already in decline. So people see that title as 'undeserved'. Meh...bollocks.

 

As for Prost - one of the very greatest. Ever. So easily could have been a 6 time World Champion, one of the greatest racers I've ever seen and knew how to play 'the game'. Alot is said about Senna and Prost but...lets face it...in their own ways they were as bad as each other. Though Suzuka 1990 from Senna was just beyond absurd. No excuse and yet a slap on the wrist. Prost handled it pretty well in retrospect. The fact we never talk of Senna without talking of Prost shows his ultimate standing in the sport. Pure legend.

 

The 80s and early 90s was just a breathtaking era 

[SophieB]

You know, despite what sometimes gets said in discussions here, there can be threads started that comment on drivers. They just have to be about something specific rather than about the driver in general and it has to be about something directly relevent to current events in Motorsport.

This thread has moved well beyond all of that, so it will be closed.