125 replies to this topic

[SennasCat]

A few months back I watched an episode on Alain Prost in Legends Of F1 (iirc).

Prost stated matter-of-factly that he never signed an F1 contract where he was #1 stated driver.

Your thoughts please on was he
a) telling it as it was
b) being Bill Clintonesque with fabulously careful wording
c) telling fibs
d) none of the above.

Personally i felt a little surprised if true, and a little bit like be was careful with words.

I was pretty syre Rosberg signed on as #2 for 1986.

No dusrespect for Prost here, seriously quick, highly intelligent as skilled at politics. Only weak spots were wet weather after being part of Pironi's 1982 Hockenheim wet weather crash.

Thsnks.

[chunder27]

The thing is, why would he lie?  he comes across as a genuinely honest fella, at the time of that interview he was not involved whatsoever.

 

Status meant a lot in those days, but for Honda it meant everything and I think it is all blown out of proportion because of 89.

[as65p]

The thing is, why would he lie? 

Why most people lie. To gain an advantage or to make themselves look better. I'll leave it to everyone to judge if Prost lies or not in this case, but to ask "why would he?" is beyond naive. My guess is that he's probably telling the truth, technically, i.e. he never had the term "#1 status" in any of his contracts. At the same time it hardly get's more powerful for a driver to be able and refuse a certain teammate, so... probably b), from the choices in the OP.

 

As for "genuinely honest fella"... nah, I won't go there.

[Collombin]

He had number one status at the 1982 French GP.

[piket]

A few months back I watched an episode on Alain Prost in Legends Of F1 (iirc).

Prost stated matter-of-factly that he never signed an F1 contract where he was #1 stated driver.

Your thoughts please on was he
a) telling it as it was
b) being Bill Clintonesque with fabulously careful wording
c) telling fibs
d) none of the above.

Personally i felt a little surprised if true, and a little bit like be was careful with words.

I was pretty syre Rosberg signed on as #2 for 1986.

No dusrespect for Prost here, seriously quick, highly intelligent as skilled at politics. Only weak spots were wet weather after being part of Pironi's 1982 Hockenheim wet weather crash.

Thsnks.

If that was true, than Rosberg was the most expensive nr2 in the history of the sport. After Piquet, best paid driver in 1986, by some accounts.

I dont think that Keke woukd ever agree signing such a contract.

Afterall, he was fastest of them all, in his opinion.

[uffen]

A new driver can sign as a #2 (here K. Rosberg) without any mention of #1 in the existing driver's (here A. Prost) contract. Even if you change the names, it matters not.

[D-Type]

What if the contract includes "obey team orders" or the equivalent in lawyer-speak?  Does that make a driver a #2?

[RCH]

Does it matter? We've all heard people (not just racing drivers!) say something about their past and we've followed up, under our breath with, "no you didn't". It's not lying or even being economical with the truth, just how someone remembers something. The older we get the more our memories change.  

[scheivlak]

A few months back I watched an episode on Alain Prost in Legends Of F1 (iirc).

Prost stated matter-of-factly that he never signed an F1 contract where he was #1 stated driver.

Your thoughts please on was he
a) telling it as it was
b) being Bill Clintonesque with fabulously careful wording
c) telling fibs
d) none of the above.

Personally i felt a little surprised if true, and a little bit like be was careful with words.

I was pretty syre Rosberg signed on as #2 for 1986.

No dusrespect for Prost here, seriously quick, highly intelligent as skilled at politics. Only weak spots were wet weather after being part of Pironi's 1982 Hockenheim wet weather crash.

Thsnks.

There's no way Rosberg would have signed on as a #2. He made his own free choice to leave Williams - where he surely wasn't #2   and I remember an interview where he said that challenging Prost in the team was one of the main reasons for that decision. IIRC in that interview he acknowledged that Prost was simply far more skilled in setting up the car to his liking and that he had never expected to be schooled the way it happened - for which he gave all credits to Alain.

Edited by scheivlak, 12 November 2017 - 21:08.

[roamic]

When Prost and Senna were teammates, wasn't Senna #1?

 

I remember when Massa and Schumacher both drove for Ferrari and Massa claimed they were both number 1. I added "Yes but Massa is 1B!"

[chunder27]

Senna was never number 1 at McLaren.

 

In my opinion he quickly was with Honda for some reason and you can see that in the marketing of the time, it was him they all wanted in the videos and stuff.

 

I tend to believe Alain, but obviously I cannot tell if he is lying or not.  

[MartLgn]

He had no insecurity about Senna joining 'his' Mclaren team for 1988 when he was clearly aware of Ayrtons speed and hunger. I have read that his Williams contract for 1993 which he signed in 1992 expressly black balled Nigel Mansell as a team mate after his experience of our nige at Ferrari, not the same as contractually number one but a clear use of his status for his own ends.

[chunder27]

No.

 

His contract black balled both Senna and Mansell as team-mates.

 

And it was only over ruled when Frank or renault or whoever agreed to pay him fully for 1994.  

 

He wanted to carry on in 94, but can you blame him for not wanting to go through either situation again?  

[dbltop]

A driver doesn't necessarily have to have #1 specified in his contract if the other guy has #2 specified in his.

[PlayboyRacer]

I was under the impression that it was Mansell who refused to have Prost as teammate for 1993, rather than the other way around? Hence Nigel legging it to CART.

Edited by PlayboyRacer, 13 November 2017 - 00:43.

[john aston]

In any discussion of great drivers ,after five or ten minutes of Villeneuve this and Fangio that , somebody pipes up 'and then there's Alain Prost '. And that makes us think a minute , stopping all the Senna frothing and Moss adulation . Because Prost undoubtedly was one of the very , very best. He wasn't given to massive strops very often and his driving was almost comically uneventful to watch but ..... 

[chunder27]

I would imagine Mansell's contract as not binding in terms of the number two driver on his terms, so in theory, if that was indeed the case, there would be nothing blocking Frank signing Prost.

 

But in Alain's contract there was specific detail about Senna, I doubt Mansell as Alain would have had him covered anyway. Only reason might be the frosty relationships they had at Ferrari, but I think neither were welcomed there at the end, this was the awful Fiorio era. And they were horrendously managed then

[kayemod]

I would imagine Mansell's contract as not binding in terms of the number two driver on his terms..

 

Not many people were able to tell Frank what to do when his team was at or near the top, especially where drivers were concerned.

[hogstar]

Mansell claimed he was always the Number Two driver, until he rejoined Williams for the 1991 season. Williams were not always noted for insisting that number one or two status was adhered to (Jones/Reutemann or Piquet/Mansell for example) though I can remember Patrese getting an earful from Patrick Head for having the audacity to lead Mansell at the French G.P I believe.

 

Ultimately, regardless of what the contract states, the fastest driver will always get more support to become the de facto Number 1, though obviously this gets tricky when you get two exceptional drivers. 

 

Rosberg went to McLaren for a final shot for another WDC (in hindsight the wrong decision as many of us would of loved Keke in FW11), but as I suspected at the time, the car would be built around Prost and his smooth driving style, which didn't suit Keke at all. It was only towards the end of the season, when Barnard announced he was leaving for Ferrari, that Keke was allowed the car to be much more to his liking and became more competitive. He retired two years two early, which he later admitted, but De Angelis' death weighed heavy on his mind. 

[chunder27]

It depends on the person reading, but I would be far more likely to believe anything Alain said than Nigel.  He would have been number 1 in 91 and 92 probably, but clearly Frank wanted Alain in 93. And maybe Nigel felt that was a step too far.

 

I agree utterly with your input about Keke, he simply didn't drive it like Alain.

[king_crud]

He wasn't given to massive strops very often and his driving was almost comically uneventful to watch but .....

I sat at the hairpin at the end of the back straight at Adelaide in 93. Not once did I notice a change in Alain's smooth driving style, from first practice to the end of the race. The rest of them we ragged in breaking, or blipping the accelerator through the turns, he was just smooth in, smooth out. It was quite something.

[Michael Ferner]

I'm with Chunder, why would he lie? To make himself look better?? C'mon - nobody in their right mind questions his status, except for the Senna fan boys who wouldn't believe him anyway. And France 1982 was not a contractual #1 status, but the perceived opinion of the Renault brass that only Prost could save the day for them, which even at the time I thought was a reasonable assumption - which still didn't stop me from applauding lil' René for his act of treason! No, Arnoux was allowed to win against the Renault father figure Jabouille, surely he was not number two to that upstart Prost. I think I'm probably not alone in thinking that Cheever was never more than a hot & cold number two, but was Prost contractual #1 in '83? I don't know, but I think I can remember one or two races (Canada? Detroit??) where Cheever was able and allowed to overtake him, so maybe he wasn't. I rather don't think that Prost bothered with #1 status when racing against Damon Hill, so that leaves only his McLaren and Ferrari years, and the evidence is pretty clear that he wasn't #1 in any one of those.

[MCS]

The first time I saw him race (I think) was at Silverstone in 1978 where he finished the race (held on the old club circuit) upside down in the catch fencing at Woodcote after a pretty frenetic previous twenty minutes or so.

 

He clearly adapted his style, whilst others didn't.

[as65p]

I'm with Chunder, why would he lie? To make himself look better?? C'mon - nobody in their right mind questions his status, except for the Senna fan boys who wouldn't believe him anyway. And France 1982 was not a contractual #1 status, but the perceived opinion of the Renault brass that only Prost could save the day for them, which even at the time I thought was a reasonable assumption - which still didn't stop me from applauding lil' René for his act of treason! No, Arnoux was allowed to win against the Renault father figure Jabouille, surely he was not number two to that upstart Prost. I think I'm probably not alone in thinking that Cheever was never more than a hot & cold number two, but was Prost contractual #1 in '83? I don't know, but I think I can remember one or two races (Canada? Detroit??) where Cheever was able and allowed to overtake him, so maybe he wasn't. I rather don't think that Prost bothered with #1 status when racing against Damon Hill, so that leaves only his McLaren and Ferrari years, and the evidence is pretty clear that he wasn't #1 in any one of those.

 

As brilliant a driver he was, that talent is eclipsed by the one to portray himself as an innocent little flower to whom so many bad things happened in his career. Just the piece in F1 legends how it was really him bringing Senna to McLaren, selflessly and purely for the teams benefit of course, has the potential to reduce grown men to tears. Surely everyone, except those nasty Senna fans of course, must believe every word he says...

[AJCee]

My over-riding memories of M.Prost are of him being too quick for a fragile McLaren and too quick for a fragile Renault and then sublime in the MP4/2 onwards I don't think many are taken in by any hard done by stories because he doesn't need any, and I'm not sure why he bothers: his record stands testament.
Personally, I preferred him to Mr Senna, but then I saw Senna rise from FF2000 onwards (other's experience may be longer) and it became increasingly clear that he, umm, had his own rules.

Edited by AJCee, 14 November 2017 - 23:20.

[E1pix]

I think Mr. Prost deserves recognition as one of the Greats... not speculation on whether he's a liar.

Maybe I'm a dreamer, but I make a point of believing people until they prove distrustful.

[ellrosso]

I'm in agreement with E1pix and king_crud here. Off track most of the greats have their flaws just like the rest of humanity in varying degrees. My first live impression of him was Adelaide 1985 where I couldn't believe how deceptively quick he was. He looked like he was on an out lap, the times would come up and he was either quickest or next best. So smooth. Senna's pole lap that year was not pretty. Effective yes, but very hairy. I know Prost is not spectacular like Senna, but for me he is a racing driver of the highest order.

[john aston]

Talent is NOT eclipsed by personality .Judge  drivers as people by all means but beware that  such judgments are highly subjective and usually reflective of the commenator's own liking or dislike of the driver concerned. I am guilty of doing this about Mansell(with twenty other charges taken into consideration )but as a driver ? On his day , as good as any peer . Just wouldn't want to be stuck in a lift with him too long .     

[chunder27]

For me, Alain has never shown anything but respect for people.

 

I don't doubt that he was a hard nut politically, and I do see why Senna was so suspicious of him and Balestre, but JMB was the nasty piece of that relationship.  Interesting Alain has never said much about it so I would guess there is something there!!

 

He is no saint, did he not get off with Arnoux's missus?

 

But to expect a champion level driver to be a saint is impossible.  I agree with most of what he says regarding Senna.  In the films he comes across as simply a man up against a force of nature that was paranoid about him, thereby making Alain the same. And the nice part is what he thinks now, that we all do, it was a fabulous time, possibly the greatest period in F1 history and he was a main player. He would not change it.

 

When I think of Alain, I think this.  Listen to the team radio after Senna wins in Brazil in 92.  The mania, the almost childlike screaming and shouting. Then think, Alain had to beat that, and did so.  And he did it without the histrionics, knowing that this man would do literally anything to beat him, beyond rules, beyond fairness.  That is what stays with me about Alain.

[AJCee]

Just to be absolutely clear, I completely agree with you John. Alain Prost was one of the very, very best, sublime to watch at work.

[Michael Ferner]

As brilliant a driver he was, that talent is eclipsed by the one to portray himself as an innocent little flower to whom so many bad things happened in his career. Just the piece in F1 legends how it was really him bringing Senna to McLaren, selflessly and purely for the teams benefit of course, has the potential to reduce grown men to tears. Surely everyone, except those nasty Senna fans of course, must believe every word he says...

q.e.d.

[as65p]

q.e.d.

Well, you don't need to be a Senna fan to have a more realistic view of Prosts character than the one the man himself tries to sell. It takes quite some fanaticism to blame his fallouts with Arnoux, Renault, Ferrari, Mansell and Senna all completely on the respective other party, so yeah, q.e.d.

[chunder27]

To be perfectly honest, all of those people were not that easy to get on with.

 

You only have to watch Arnoux on track to realise he was a high and low merchant.

 

You forget to mention that LAuda got on with him fine, as did Alesi, Cheever, Hill, Johansson, Rosberg, Watson etc.

 

Senna based his entire career on beating Prost so that was never going to fly, Mansell fell out with just about every team he ever drove for, so that doesn't fly either.  THe only one I can understand is Rene as he bonked his missus!!  And two French in a French team, one flamboyant and extrovert, the other, quiet and serious. Never likely to work now was it!

[as65p]

To be perfectly honest, all of those people were not that easy to get on with.

 

You only have to watch Arnoux on track to realise he was a high and low merchant.

 

You forget to mention that LAuda got on with him fine, as did Alesi, Cheever, Hill, Johansson, Rosberg, Watson etc.

 

Senna based his entire career on beating Prost so that was never going to fly, Mansell fell out with just about every team he ever drove for, so that doesn't fly either.  THe only one I can understand is Rene as he bonked his missus!!  And two French in a French team, one flamboyant and extrovert, the other, quiet and serious. Never likely to work now was it!

 

IIRC it wasn't Arnoux wife but one for a fairly high placed person from Renault, so that's not the reason for anything to do with Arnoux. And you forgot Prosts fell out with two of the teams he drove for (Renault and Ferrari), one could even say three and include McLaren at the end of '89. So his record in that regard is no better than Mansells, just that evidently he has a far better way to always present himself as the innocent victim.

 

Sure Prost got on well with some of his teammates. But so did Senna. What goes for both of them, and really everyone, it obviously takes two to tango. I maintain it's highly simplistic to buy into that "honest Alain against the evil world of F1" story.

[Michael Ferner]

I maintain it's highly simplistic to buy into that "honest Alain against the evil world of F1" story.

... which nobody is trying to sell, except you. Buy from yourself then, and let other people decide on their own purchase.

[as65p]

... which nobody is trying to sell, except you. Buy from yourself then, and let other people decide on their own purchase.

Pfft... what gave you the impression I wouldn't let you believe whatever you like? I just expressed my different POV and the reasons for it.

[chunder27]

OK Renault.

 

They printed the t shirts in 83 before Alain had won, he was made s scapegoat for their failures. A hopelessly mismanaged team back then.

 

Ferrari, fair enough, he walked out on them, but was fed up with car failures and poor management, and it was the Fiorio era there a notoriously difficult man and someone Alain would not last 5 minutes with I am sure!

 

McLaren, Senna was Dennis's love child and he was off to Ferrari the next year with the number one plate, protested the last race and tried to get Senna excluded. Again what do you expect, hardly a fall out, more a circumstance!

[as65p]

OK Renault.

 

They printed the t shirts in 83 before Alain had won, he was made s scapegoat for their failures. A hopelessly mismanaged team back then.

 

Ferrari, fair enough, he walked out on them, but was fed up with car failures and poor management, and it was the Fiorio era there a notoriously difficult man and someone Alain would not last 5 minutes with I am sure!

 

McLaren, Senna was Dennis's love child and he was off to Ferrari the next year with the number one plate, protested the last race and tried to get Senna excluded. Again what do you expect, hardly a fall out, more a circumstance!

 

Thanks, you just killed MF's claim that nobody tries to portray Prost as always the innocent party.

[chunder27]

I don't really care about what other people say, unless they can back up an opinion.

 

My opinion from reading all sorts of accounts is that at Renault and McLaren he was a victim of all sorts of things.

Whereas at Ferrari the blame was fairly equal between him and the team, he made several silly errors at Ferrari and quitting races is never likely to endear you to any team member. But he also nearly won a world title and was taken out of the chance to win again by a suicidal move that should have meant that driver was prevented from competing for a year.

[Michael Ferner]

Thanks, you just killed MF's claim that nobody tries to portray Prost as always the innocent party.

There seems to be a problem of perception here: you have your point of view, fair enough, that Alain was a liar, difficult to get along with, and trying to screw other people left and right, yada yada. You can keep it, frame it and hang it in your bedroom. But please accept that other people without these preconceived notions have a more objective view of things, and won't buy your ill-concealed innuendo. It's too easy to see where it comes from.

[as65p]

There seems to be a problem of perception here: you have your point of view, fair enough, that Alain was a liar, difficult to get along with, and trying to screw other people left and right, yada yada. You can keep it, frame it and hang it in your bedroom

 

I didn't phrase it anything like that, as you well know. That frame fits better in your bedroom, where you can keep arguing it with yourself.
 

 

But please accept that other people without these preconceived notions have a more objective view of things,

 

I have no problem, and said already as much, accepting different POV's. If you must believe that yours is more "objective", you can keep that belief too.

 

 

It's too easy to see where it comes from.

 

That's your true problem, isn't it? Yours, but not mine.

Edited by as65p, 17 November 2017 - 17:02.

[MLC]

Team personnel who have worked with him (Tony Jardine, Joe Ramirez, Frank Williams, etc.) generally have all spoken well of Alain. I don't think there is any hidden scheming personality behind the scenes.

 

I first saw Prost drive in person in 1989. He is remarkably smooth and it was indeed difficult to tell a warm-up lap from a hot lap.

[Zippel]

I would've thought his time as owner of ProstGP would have added to how he was perceived as well.

Fell out with Mugen Honda (declaring their engines as rubbish mid 97), ignored Nakano for most of 1997, fell out with Peugeot, Panis, Alesi (famously said Prost only had himself to blame for ruining the team), Heidfeld, every sponsor from 2000 wasnt on the car in 2001 (that takes some doing!), Pedro Diniz, technical directors, mechanics going on strike in 2000, and many team personal felt abandoned by him once the team declared bankruptcy.

Edited by Zippel, 17 November 2017 - 19:05.

[as65p]

I would've thought his time as owner of ProstGP would have added to how he was perceived as well.

Fell out with Mugen Honda (declaring their engines as rubbish mid 97), ignored Nakano for most of 1997, fell out with Peugeot, Panis, Alesi (famously said Prost only had himself to blame for ruining the team), Heidfeld, every sponsor from 2000 wasnt on the car in 2001 (that takes some doing!), Pedro Diniz, technical directors, mechanics going on strike in 2000, and many team personal felt abandoned by him once the team declared bankruptcy.

 

But those are mostly french and japanese names. Prost clearly stated his difficulties working with french people in the F1 Legends docu, and the Japanese were probably all Senna fans. Diniz was even a Brazilian himself, need I say more?

 

 

[LittleChris]

Isn't the discussion about his No 1 status as driver ?  Plainly he wasn't a very good team principal but the skills, primarily diplomatic / bullshitting people ,  are massively different

[john aston]

Indeed - and whilst it' s fine to discuss differences in our perception of a driver this forum has always been free of personal sniping between posters . Can we try to keep it that way perhaps ?  

[Gold]

Being a die hard Senna fan, I have nothing but the utmost respect for Alain Prost. A sentiment that in my mind Senna, had he lived, would have echoed today. As for number one status, it is entirely feasible. With Niki he was the youngster in the team, with Ayrton, he himself recommended that Mclaren hire him. 

 

[opplock]

I saw Prost race in 25 Grands Prix of which he won eight. He never looked the quickest driver but frequently was. Had Renault supplied him with a reliable car in 81 and 82 he would probably have won 2 more championships. One of the true greats despite Imola 1991.  

[piket]

Being a die hard Senna fan, I have nothing but the utmost respect for Alain Prost. A sentiment that in my mind Senna, had he lived, would have echoed today. As for number one status, it is entirely feasible. With Niki he was the youngster in the team, with Ayrton, he himself recommended that Mclaren hire him.

In fact, I think he mentioned once being a nr.2 against Niki in 1984. Not having a spare car and less testing time were one of the " privileges" of such a contract.

Edit: Although once he showed speed I think he was given equality without doubt. McLaren was run quite fair.

Edited by piket, 19 November 2017 - 09:07.

[RandomG]

Senna was never number 1 at McLaren.

 

In my opinion he quickly was with Honda for some reason and you can see that in the marketing of the time, it was him they all wanted in the videos and stuff.

 

I tend to believe Alain, but obviously I cannot tell if he is lying or not.  

 

Senna was never number 1 at McLaren, however he definately was at Honda. McLaren certainly were complicit in Senna's favouritism from Honda.