135 replies to this topic

[pRy]

Alain Prost speaks on "Inside Sport", BBC One, Monday, 2320 GMT.

It appears he talks about the state of F1 today and talks of who he feels will win this years title. (Hamilton)

[as65p]

Originally posted by pRy
Alain Prost speaks on "Inside Sport", BBC One, Monday, 2320 GMT.
... (Hamilton)

shouldn't you have added a "spoiler" tag to the thread title?

;)

[pRy]

Originally posted by as65p


shouldn't you have added a "spoiler" tag to the thread title?

;)

I don't think so. The BBC are reporting this prediction on their site so I figure it's public knowledge.

[Hacklerf]

Prost disillusioned by F1

[former champ]

Originally posted by Hacklerf
Prost disillusioned by F1

He's only stating the obvious. F1 cars should have no driver aids whatsoever and, in a perfect world, they should have to change gear also. It was all part of the art.

[Hacklerf]

Prost "A new driver with very little experience can come in to Formula One and drive very quickly. It's just like playing on a PlayStation"

Spot on Prost, spot on

[Dancing_Donkey]

The interviewer does lead him into going for Hamilton as his choice for the title. Ask him several questions about Hamilton, then ask "who will win the title".

[Hames Junt]

Originally posted by Dancing_Donkey
The interviewer does lead him into going for Hamilton as his choice for the title. Ask him several questions about Hamilton, then ask "who will win the title".

I think Alain Prost is a man who can make his own decisions, if he wanted to say Raikkonen or Alonso or whoever, he would have said them.

[Fatgadget]

Originally posted by Hacklerf
Prost "A new driver with very little experience can come in to Formula One and drive very quickly. It's just like playing on a PlayStation"

Spot on Prost, spot on

With all due respect to Monsiour Prost, its a sign of the times. Some of the simulators/games available for game consoles these days are so realistic it's scary.He shouldnt dismiss the playstation generation as glibly as that.

[Sith]

Originally posted by Fatgadget


With all due respect to Monsiour Prost, its a sign of the times. Some of the simulators/games available for game consoles these days are so realistic it's scary.He shouldnt dismiss the playstation generation as glibly as that.

And that's coming from you Fatgadget.....

[Fatgadget]

Ookay you got me! ..very good very good!!

[intelligentsia]

Originally posted by Dancing_Donkey
The interviewer does lead him into going for Hamilton as his choice for the title. Ask him several questions about Hamilton, then ask "who will win the title".

He said it is between Hamilton and Raikkonen, and it will depend on, if Raikkonen has the motivation or not.

[Cenotaph]

I don't see what's so wrong with F1 cars these days. Time doesn't stop, new technology arrives and the cars get better, so what? Alain Prost's cars were easier to drive than those of the previous decades as well... Infact, Prost was one of the guys who took advantage from those early 90's Williams that were filled with driver aids with almost no regulations on them...

The cars are better, but the driver still has to do his job. I wonder how would Prost do in a modern F1 car with little practice compared to others, cause Hakkinen seemed to struggle a bit last year. I respect Alain's achievements as one of the greatest drivers ever, but i really hate this kind of attitude.

[RSNS]

Having watched his fights with Lauda and Senna I can hardly disagree with him: those were exciting races. A driver's intelligence and strategic sense made all the difference. Qualifying and race were two very different issues. From the time sheets you could never know who would win. During races you actually saw Racing.

He warms to Hamilton because Hamilton is the most impressive driver to watch. I have often stated as much: seeing Hamilton in action is one of the really thrilling things in today's F1.

So, yes: ban refueling, make overtaking possible, abolish rev limiters and make it possible to have different alternatives to win a race (fast beginning, slow middle, fast end; OR slow beginning, fast end, OR, ... and so forth). Make cars much harder to drive so that drivers do get very tired and have to spare themselves. If necessary make races longer. I think he will propose something of the kind.

[RSNS]

Originally posted by Cenotaph
I don't see what's so wrong with F1 cars these days. Time doesn't stop, new technology arrives and the cars get better, so what? Alain Prost's cars were easier to drive than those of the previous decades as well... Infact, Prost was one of the guys who took advantage from those early 90's Williams that were filled with driver aids with almost no regulations on them...

The cars are better, but the driver still has to do his job. I wonder how would Prost do in a modern F1 car with little practice compared to others, cause Hakkinen seemed to struggle a bit last year. I respect Alain's achievements as one of the greatest drivers ever, but i really hate this kind of attitude.

While it is true that you cannot stop the progress, you can still strive to make F1 more interesting. I don't know if you have watched the Prost-Senna days, but from your post I would say you haven't. The whole point is that experience and strategic racing are much less important nowadays. Bring that back and you bring back excitement.

This is not about nostalgia: it is about the thrills of a good and exciting race.

[BMW_F1]

Originally posted by Hacklerf
Prost "A new driver with very little experience can come in to Formula One and drive very quickly. It's just like playing on a PlayStation"

Spot on Prost, spot on

this is the way I see it also..

[Cenotaph]

Don't get me wrong, i'm not saying that nothing can be done to make races more exciting and closer, to force drivers to risk more and stuff like that.

Im merely stating that i find it insulting for current F1 drivers, that a guy that won his last WDC in the car with the most driver aids in f1 ever, can just come out and say that driving a modern F1 is like playing on a playstation.

It's not only hypocritical, but also arrogant.

[hobbes]

Its as if Kimi's motivation is the most important factor

[Orin]

Originally posted by hobbes
Its as if Kimi's motivation is the most important factor

Hakkinen said that after the first title the pressure to win actually increased, but I don't think Raikkonen will react in the same way. 2007 was a real struggle, but he's now firmly installed and may revel in being given a few years in a car which is likely to be the best in the field, we might see him string together 2 or 3 titles with relative ease. I suppose it depends on quality of the car McLaren deliver to Hamilton, and whether he can fully develop the potential shown in his rookie season. The next few seasons could be classics.

[Dunc]

http://news.bbc.co.u...one/7273741.stm

Anyone agree with him?

[douglasross]

It is always worth listening to someone like Alain Prost as he, in his time, set a number of records. He has been a top driver and a team principal. In his day there was lots of on track overtaking and there was more emphasis on driver ability rather than the car

[Jason]

Some of the things he says sounds like self-glorification, but for the most part I agree with him.

[tkulla]

I agree with him, and I think Senna would have to. Hopefully the sport is heading for more balance in car/driver influence.

[RSNS]

Originally posted by Cenotaph
Don't get me wrong, i'm not saying that nothing can be done to make races more exciting and closer, to force drivers to risk more and stuff like that.

Im merely stating that i find it insulting for current F1 drivers, that a guy that won his last WDC in the car with the most driver aids in f1 ever, can just come out and say that driving a modern F1 is like playing on a playstation.

It's not only hypocritical, but also arrogant.

Well... not arrogant, I think, although you could say that Prost was rather hypocritical. But he would never (no one would, I think) deny himself of the possibility of winning a WCD almost easily (as 93 really was). So he may have felt that F1 was becoming to easy, but better that the easiness was for himself rather than for Senna.

At any rate, his best WDC were achieved in difficult cars and difficult conditions. And he is one of the really qualified drivers to talk about strategy and interesting races. Watching him race was really surprising. He was about 5th or 6th and suddenly, when you never expected it, he would come up in first. Then you would think: it won't last. But he would then pull about 10 record breaking laps and the fellow behind would lose nerve. It really was fascinating stuff.

Then Nikki Lauda turned the tables on him, even if the Rat was in a very downhill lane. By half a point, and this in a Championship where real racing happened throughout the year.

Prost revenged himself the next year: when Lauda at last beat him (Netherlands GP, and against all odds: he did not have any rubber left) Prost said that he allowed Lauda to win.

Well, like hell he did: he pressed in almost every corner, tried to slip through but could not find a way. It was really incredible, because Prost had changed tires, whereas Lauda hadn't. Therefore, Prost kept gaining ground, and everybody felt that if he could catch Lauda some laps before the end he would win. He did catch him before the end, but, in spite of trying, burning tires and almost locking wheels between them, he could not find a way.

I watched this race with a group of friends, and everybody was supporting the underdog (Lauda). When Lauda got the checkered flag we spontaneously burst out cheering and clapping. I am a very reserved person, but it was THAT exciting.

I think Prost missed that kind of emotion, and you cannot deny him the knowledge of these times...

[Mauseri]

Originally posted by Hacklerf
Prost "A new driver with very little experience can come in to Formula One and drive very quickly. It's just like playing on a PlayStation"

Spot on Prost, spot on

These drivers who come in are good, propably much better trained than in Prost era. Back then the recipe for speed was hidden and you had to learn it the hardway. I dont complain that the level of the field is much higher today and the differences between cars are much smaller. You dont win it anymore by doing 'prosts'.

[RSNS]

Originally posted by micra_k10

These drivers who come in are good, propably much better trained than in Prost era. Back then the recipe for speed was hidden and you had to learn it the hardway. I dont complain that the level of the field is much higher today and the differences between cars are much smaller. You dont win it anymore by doing 'prosts'.

Perhaps. But then the Raikkonens, Alonsos and Hamiltons wouldn't stand a chance against the Prosts, Sennas and Fangios.
Perhaps the recipe for speed was not hidden, it was just harder and more dangerous to find.

[IOU 16]

I agree with Mr. Prost.

[Tenmantaylor]

"The car was always more important than the driver, but the good teams knew who the best drivers were in my time."

I think this was the most self-gloryfying comment he made. Its true back then the best drivers were in the best cars but you could just as easily argue that now. Kimi, Alonso and Lewis proved themselves to be the best drivers in F1 last year. The only difference now is McLaren dont know how to keep them... oh wait.. maybe not THAT much has changed afterall...

[StefanV]

The removal of traction control systems this season might be a move in the right direction, but Prost believes the sport still has some way to go before it is a contest again and not an extended science project.

A part of me want the "old times" back, before electronics, but F1 was always an extended science project. I don't really see that as a problem, apart from the direction that FIA has picked for the science project. It is science that is confined in F1, that has no application in the real world. When was the last time one could say "wow, what a genius invention" about anything in F1?

[AyePirate]

Originally posted by StefanV

When was the last time one could say "wow, what a genius invention" about anything in F1?

Almost never. The research and development angle is just a lie manufacturers tell to people who hate racing.

[GregAU]

The article is titled "Prost disillusioned by f1", yet it contains only 4 quotes from the man.
The rest is just prattle from the articles author about his glory days and contains zero substance with any real meat.
The author states he canceled his overseas holiday for the interview and he gives us that.
BS.

[AndreasF1]

Prost makes some valid points. He shouldn't forget that during the mid to late eightees F1 wasn't always super exciting either. 1988 was a classic bore fest and anybody in that McLaren would have walked the championship. The same goes for the Williams in 1987 and the McLaren of 84 and 85. I am not talking about the classic battles between teammates during these years but of the power distribution among teams.
It has become harder to relate to F1 in absolute terms, be it speed, money or technology. In the 1980's and early 90's an F1 engine still sounded like an over-reved car engine. Today it's like listening to a dental drill on sterioids...

[dank]

Originally posted by GregAU
The article is titled "Prost disillusioned by f1", yet it contains only 4 quotes from the man.
The rest is just prattle from the articles author about his glory days and contains zero substance with any real meat.
The author states he canceled his overseas holiday for the interview and he gives us that.
BS.

Because it was a teaser for the programme (Inside Sport) the interview came from which was shown on BBC 1 last night. They're not going to quote absolutely everything otherwise nobody would have watched it!

[Melbourne Park]

Prost is correct IMO.

[glorius&victorius]

is the interview somewhere online? BBC website or youtube?
thanks!

[angst]

Originally posted by micra_k10

These drivers who come in are good, propably much better trained than in Prost era. Back then the recipe for speed was hidden and you had to learn it the hardway. I dont complain that the level of the field is much higher today and the differences between cars are much smaller. You dont win it anymore by doing 'prosts'.

What do you mean, exactly, by much better trained? You know that prost raced karts, FRenault, F3 before F1. And what, exactly, do you mean by "the recipe for speed was hidden and you had to learn it the hard way"? Isn't this, in fact, code for; the cars now help the driver to reach the recipe for speed?

And your last, very short, sentence is rather the point. No, one doesn't win it anymore by doing "prosts", by thinking through a race, by racing. One does it by optimising the qualifying fuel load, starting on the front row and making sure you reach the first corner first. If you like your 'racing' to consist of a line of cars whose pace you essentially know after the first run of pit-stops, and the finishing order you can pretty much predict from that point , then fair enough. Having watched racing where drivers set about the race with very different strategies, where qualifying wasn't the be all and end all of the weekend, where a driver running around seventh in the early stages is suddenly tearing through the pack after the halfway mark and closing on the erstwhile leaders; where a driver was responsible for looking after his tyres and keeping the car together; where overtaking was possible - even between relatively evenly-matched cars; where a driver's mistakes would cost him valuable time and positions.....I know which I would rather see.

[StefanV]

Originally posted by AyePirate


Almost never. The research and development angle is just a lie manufacturers tell to people who hate racing.

But it used to be different. The wings, the ground effect, the active suspension, the turbo, the TC. Once it was all new. Formula One is about building a car that is faster than all other cars and then to have a driver that can realize the cars potential. It has never been a formula designed for the drivers or to find out who is the fastest driver. Maybe the driver had more influence before, but it was still the fastest car that won. With very few exceptions. It is easy to get sentimental, but one should not let the sentimentality modify history. There is plenty of formulas, series, where the drivers makes the big difference. Unfortunately, they are not, for one reason or another, interesting for the broadcast companies. Maybe we should simply try to let them know what we want to see instead of trying to change Formula One in the core? Formula One will only change if they have to and since they have no real competition they don't need to. For sure, in many countries they also show other racing series, but usually with very basic coverage and often only summaries of a race. That will never attract a big audience.

[LostProphet]

The problem is that at the moment, F1 is stuck in a no-man's land.

I'd be happy to see it go either way. Either:

a) The cars stay as standardised as they are, but the aero problems are rectified to the point where the drivers can really race each other. Therefore we get a great show of driver skill

OR

b) They open up the floor to technical innovation once more and we see what StefanV talks about. The best, most innovative technical creations that they can come up with, and finding the drivers to realise that potential.


Because right now, we have cars that are partially-standardised but still technical enough that the driver can't make much of a difference (say when following another car through a corner), but not technical enough to make that side of things particularly exciting anymore either.

[StefanV]

Originally posted by LostProphet

Because right now, we have cars that are partially-standardised but still technical enough that the driver can't make much of a difference (say when following another car through a corner), but not technical enough to make that side of things particularly exciting anymore either.

Exactly. It seems like all changes lately have only one aim: Maintain Status Quo.
It is almost impossible for new teams to enter and those that is in is pampered to stay because Bernie needs a certain amount of cars on the grid. But the good teams stay good teams, the midfield teams stay midfield and the field fillers simply do their job. And since the regulation simply tightens each season, without really changing, the teams can continue to polish the same turd im absurdum. Engine freeze, budget caps, single ECU, single tyre manufacturer. That is not to inspire innovation. It does not make it any cheaper (it could make it cheaper, but it doesn't in practice because each tenths (of a lap time) cost more and more each season). It simply maintains Status Quo.

[speedy]

I'm about as old (or young) as Alain Prost. I also tend to glorify the past and remember how good life was back then. But I have also noticed that the whole world has changed a lot since I was young and many things are much better than they were back then. Also cars have changed as tehnology has progressed - road cars nowadays are much better and safer than they were 20-30 years ago. There is also a completely new generation of drivers who have been driving almost 20 years at the age of 20. I think there is something mr Prost deliberately wants to forget while glorifying the past. IMO the best drivers come on top with or without driver aids. They start with cars that have no driver aids and they are the ones who start their success stories at a very young age. :

If you want to race with old cars and old technology, there are history classes for anyone interested.

[former champ]

Prost.

[former champ]

Originally posted by Cenotaph
Im merely stating that i find it insulting for current F1 drivers, that a guy that won his last WDC in the car with the most driver aids in f1 ever, can just come out and say that driving a modern F1 is like playing on a playstation.

That's a cop out. What about the rest of his World titles? With no driver aids, no auto gearboxes, refuelling wasn't allowed, Prost has a genuine point.

[former champ]

Originally posted by micra_k10

These drivers who come in are good, propably much better trained than in Prost era. Back then the recipe for speed was hidden and you had to learn it the hardway. I dont complain that the level of the field is much higher today and the differences between cars are much smaller. You dont win it anymore by doing 'prosts'.

anything to protect Raikkonen's status in your eyes. That's all your post is about. Compare F1 now to F1 in say 1985 and really think about it. Your right that no one on the current grid wins by doing a Prost, not one of them is capable of winning a World title in an inferior car the way he managed. Level of the field much higher? Heh, you need a history lesson.

[DMJC]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by StefanV
[B]
But it used to be different. The wings, the ground effect, the active suspension, the turbo, the TC. Once it was all new. Formula One is about building a car that is faster than all other cars and then to have a driver that can realize the cars potential. It has never been a formula designed for the drivers or to find out who is the fastest driver. Maybe the driver had more influence before, but it was still the fastest car that won. With very few exceptions. It is easy to get sentimental, but one should not let the sentimentality modify history. There is plenty of formulas, series, where the drivers makes the big difference. Unfortunately, they are not, for one reason or another, interesting for the broadcast companies.

Well F1 was a formula containing Ferrari, Matra-Simca,BRM and le garagistes...March, Lotus,Brabham,Shadow,Mclaren, etc etc. Anyone could buy a car, and a Cosworth and go racing...and see if they were good enough? So F1 has been a formula for drivers in the recent past, as recent as the 80's, so to make it relevant to enthusiasts rather than anoraks, it should revert to how it was, one should be able to buy car/engine and create a team to run for world championship points. As it is at present, and even Max & Bernie know this, it is a playground for Manufacturer's Engineers and Media Persons turned Manufacturer's Team Principals a la Norbert Haug.As to fastest cars winning, it's very arguable that Ferrari had the quickest car in the last half of 1970, but a Lotus won. In 73, it's most likely that Peterson in the Lotus 72, was faster than Stewart in the Tyrrell 006, but JYS won.And there are other examples. In those days a fast driver could make more difference. Broadcasters showed some races then, and were not bothered that the cars were not technological masterpieces.....it's not the cars nor the teams that people come to watch, or that people want to see...it's the drivers....always has been, always will be. In the end, the manufacturers will walk away without a care or look backwards, if their Boards say so.....to be in hoc to the likes of Renault, Mercedes, Toyota etc, is very shortsighted indeed!

[speedy]

Originally posted by former champ


That's a cop out. What about the rest of his World titles? With no driver aids, no auto gearboxes, refuelling wasn't allowed, Prost has a genuine point.

Well, if Prost could win it without driver aids and repeated it with driver aids, doesn't that prove that whatever the system, the best ones come on top. Sometimes people are blind when it comes to things that are too close.

[molive]

Mostly, Alain is correct.

[Rinehart]

It doesn't matter whether the cars are easier or harder to drive in different eras, your still beating 20-odd of the best drivers in the world with like-for-like equipment, so the results don't change much.

[jonpollak]

Just my luck...
The one bloody thing NOT on the BBC i-Player...

I've always been partial to the opinions of people with experience.

Jp

[Timstr11]

Motor racing and F1 especially is inherently a science project.

Prost is talking BS.

The man has failed at running his own team as he obviously discovered that more then anything to compete at a decent level in F1, you need a well resourced technical base.

Yes, it is a science project and I love it for that!
If I hated the technology I'd be watching Formula Renault.

I suggest all who think differently quit F1 and watch a low tech spec series. There are plenty around.

[angst]

Originally posted by Rinehart
It doesn't matter whether the cars are easier or harder to drive in different eras, your still beating 20-odd of the best drivers in the world with like-for-like equipment, so the results don't change much.

Maybe not, but I know which is better to watch....