13 replies to this topic

[SpaRCo]

In the 88 season prost and senna dominated in a way never seen in F1 racing.I have read in some places that the 88 mclaren was one of,if not the best F1 car ever.

Personaly i dont think it was.
Senna and prost were definatly the fastest drivers back then,and they proved with their previous team mates,that they were considerably faster over a race distance(eg. 30-50secs)so even if the mclarens were only slightly faster than the rest,they would of demolished the field,due to their talents.
Plus at silverston that year they didnt even make the front row,alboreto beat them both,so its obvious the mclaren wast the best at every track.
I think the mclaren that year was the fastest but by only .5 a second maximum.
The drivers made the rest of the Difference.
I think the best ever car is probably the 92 williams.Mansell was upto 3 seconds faster than the others in qualifying,something that we have never seen before.

[Nathan]

Hmm. Intersting theory. However .5 seconds is a lot my friend. Think about a 60-lap race, thats 30-seconds. There was alot of driver talent for sure, but I think it was the engine that was the best.

As for the Williams. I must agree. By far it was the most technically innovative car at the time. But back then it was all luck. Who could prgram computers the best I guess.

[Dudley]

Nathan - Why is "who can program the computers the best" any more luck than "Who can build the best aerodynamics"

Sparco - You're probably right, Honda were WAY ahead of the game in 1988, the Mp4/4 was a tidy car, but it wasn't a stunner, but the Lotus 100t (or was it the 99?) was apparently a bit of a dog. that combined with Prost and Senna pretty much meant it was out in front.

The 1992 Williams is a good choice, but going back a bit, if it wasn't so fragile, the Lotus 49 would be another suggestion, and for sheer logevity the Maserati 250F.

[Nathan]

I say computers because clearly the active suspension system was resposible for most of the 3-second gaps Sparco was talking about. There is no way the aerodynamics can be worth 3-seconds compared to the runner-ups in modern F-1.

I say luck because most of the electronic aids were still a black art technology back then, atleast when it came to getting the max out of them. Again if everyone had figured the whole active suspension thing out, the 3-sec gap wouldnt exsist. Williams simply hired the better computer programmers and spent the most time developing the systems, which is because the car was good and reliable out of the box, allowing for more time to be spent elsewhere, such as active suspension, rather than developing the cars problems.

[This message has been edited by Nathan (edited 05-26-2000).]

[BuzzingHornet]

No, that McLaren was a supercar. As soon as it turned a wheel they knew they were in with a shot of winning all the races... Prost & Senna were 'the best' but they had a great great car that year too

[Clatter]

I think the results speak for themselves. You dont get a near season long whitewash on driver talent alone. The car was certainly the best that season.

And the reason they were out-qualified at some circuits could simply be down to concentrating on race set-up rather than qualfying setup.

Mansell in his books has said that on occasions he would sacrifice a good qualfying position to get the best race setup, and then come back from halfway down the grid to win.

[whiplash]

the ferraris in 88 had the most horsepower, but they had ridiculous fuel consumption (e.g. berger started on pole at silverstone, kept up a fight in the early part of the race, fell back, then was passed on the last lap by many cars as he practically ran out of fuel). the leyton-house cars (designed by none other than adrian newey) probably had the best chassis. but the non-turbos were out of it for most of the races.
mclaren had a good car, a great engine and fantastic drivers, but the competition just couldn't get it together.

[Smooth]

Best drivers on the grid, clearly, but also an incredibly dominant car.....

[Peeko]

whiplash is on the right track I think. The Honda engine was powerful, but it was also extremely fuel efficient which allowed Prost and Senna to run with a greater amount of turbo boost compared to their rivals. In the last race in Australia, Berger didn't care about his fuel, and ran his boost high and actually homed in and passed both McLarens for the lead. Unfortunately, Arnoux took Berger out before the gas tank did.

[Nathan]

Last night lyining bed I pondered this topic. I realized one thing, the one thing that makes the 88 McLaren the best car in recent memory. I dont think it was all driver talent or engine power, but they were the reason for 15 wins. I think even with just either Senna or Prost, or 2 decent drivers the car still would have won the constructors title atleast. This is what makes me think this:

I was reading a article on Senna. In the article it stated that at the first test session of the 88 year that most teams testes at Imola, both McLaren cars were atleast 1.2-seconds faster than the third best time. The interesting point is Prost had stated he could drive the car with one hand it was so easy. Senna agreed. Now note the driving style differences between Prost and Senna. Prost was calm, and smooth, Senna attacked, 110% every lap. This day in age is is nearly impossible to design 1 car that can be suitable for both those types of driving styles. Ask anyone who was a team mates with MS. The Benettons of 94/95/96 are perfect examples of this theory. As is Zanardi last year at Williams. Plus you rarely see two teamates that have opposite driving styles, for this reason.

So I say the reason why the 1988 McLaren-Honda is one of the greats of all times isnt because it won 15 of 16 races, or whatever. Its that McLaren could design a chassis to fit 2 totally different driving styles, and allow each of those different styles to get the max out of that 1 car.

[This message has been edited by Nathan (edited 05-26-2000).]

[mono-posto]

"There is a definite formula to winning. It is 50% car, 25% driver and 25% luck."
-Juan Manuel Fangio

...and that is a man that should know!

[AD]

but then he said something along the lines straight after this, "but nowadays it's 95% car"

[Dudley]

Those who are just claiming it was all the engine might like to remember that despite Lotus having the exact same engine and the then reigning champion Nelson Piquet, they couldn't keep up.

[selena]

I agree with Nathan. That was the best car ever and they had the best drivers ever and that is why they dominated by winning 15 out of 16 races. Really terrific!