Joined Apr 2015
6K Posts | 5K+
NJ
Alain Prost.
He never took outrageous risks.
The late great Denis Jenkinson commented back in 1983 after watching Prost going around the Circuit de Spa Francorchamps, that "there has never been a duller proposition than watching Alain Prost go around a track, yet somehow he managed to set the fastest lap on the day. There must be a lesson in there somewhere." Prost was one of the dullest drivers to watch out there, yet he had 41 fastest laps in grands prix, and Ayrton Senna only had 19.
In fact he became even more circumspect regarding the dangers of racing when in the torrential rain at the old Hockenheimring in 1982, he had the misfortune of Didier Pironi running into the back of his Renault at high speed during practice. Prost saw how badly Pironi's legs were damaged from the accident that he never took outrageous risks as a result. He parked his car in Adelaide 1989 when he had wrapped the title up due to the rain. He drove to the exact position he needed to in a given race. In spite of it, he won 51 grands prix and 4 world championships, and on top of that he was in serious contention for another 4 world championships, losing one by half a point. In fact I've argued elsewhere that he was may have been the greatest F1 world champion of them all when you look at his career. But that's not something I want to get into.
prost was ideal in the turbo era. everyone had lots of dnf's both due to mechanical failure (mostly) and also human error on driving those beasts! so if you drove less aggresive and calmly you had a better chance to finish. on the other hand lauda beat him on a same car and senna in his rookie year with a car prost developed.
Joined Jun 2007
10K Posts | 1K+
Norah Head
There you go. I was a Prost man as well, although not from the start, for similar reasons, and was aware of the pole position vs fastest lap dichotomy, which exactly reflects your point imo, ie Prost was at least as fast but not prepared to take the same risks.
So Prost was perfect all the time was he? Not once, even in his formative years en-route to F1 did he not have a brain fade and end up stuffing the car into the barriers? I find that very hard to believe.
Joined Jun 2007
10K Posts | 1K+
Norah Head
Joined Apr 2015
6K Posts | 5K+
NJ
Trying to move the goalposts?
Come on already Ant.
I showed you're out here making unfounded statements.
Joined Apr 2015
6K Posts | 5K+
NJ
Prost favored understeering cars, and I feel that had a lot to do with the "boredom" factor that fans/media/drivers talked about with him. In fact, he was one of the greatest understeer drivers to ever drive Formula 1.
He has talked about his wet weather driving, and a lot of people forget that Prost was not a slouch in the rain. He stated after he saw the Pironi accident in '82, he never had an interest to put himself at risk in wet conditions.
I think it's incredibly silly to say that one can't win races without taking outrageous risks. In fact, I have more admiration for the racer who wins without taking stupid/outrageous risks ala Marco Simoncelli, Ayrton Senna, Michael Schumacher and others. The racer who doesn't do that has infinitely more skill as it requires less skill to try and bully someone off the track in a "you decide if we crash or not" or driving into disappearing gaps that can result in catastrophic accidents.
I've always said the worst thing that ever happened to motor racing at large was all of the increases in track and car safety as it encouraged new generations of drivers to be blissfully ignorant of what the consequences of dangerous racing are. Max Verstappen is a prime example of where all of this led to as he (along with a plethora of moron fans and the F1 race direction/stewards) thought it was perfectly acceptable to weave in braking zones as a method of defense. Even though they finally told him to stop, I have to wonder if he'll go back to doing this stuff in 2017. If he does, you're potentially looking at it being a matter of time before he kills someone. Let's put it this way, 50 years ago, if you were weaving in braking zones as a defense in 1967, the drivers would have beat the .... out of you in the paddock for it as everyone knew all too well what the risks were. Today's drivers have no real concept of risks because they're part of the video game generation who think because driving like a maniac in a video game is acceptable, it should be more than okay in real life. No consequences in video games, and the line with real life has been blurred. A pity Verstappen fans are so myopic, but it's a lot of the same myopia that consumed, and continues to consume Simoncelli fans even to this day.
Really? Do tell.
You made it clear you don't like Simoncelli, me neither but he was no more dangerous than other riders, he died from an accident that any other rider could have had.
What's your opinion on Michael Dunlop? A man who has lost his father and two uncles on a race track and has basically accepted it's probably going to happen to him?
It is your opinion that he was no more dangerous, but the opinion as with Senna of competitors, including competitors who were multiple title winners themselves and usually beat him, that he was reckless and a risk to himself and others, with one as with Senna more or less predicting his demise. You can argue about luck in their final incidents, but I find what his actual competitors said and even predicted more powerful.
I personally had less of a problem with things like the Pedrosa incident, and more with things like his propensity for pushing too hard on cold tyres in opening laps, or indeed the first corner, on the old Bridgestones with the cold performance problems.
Last edited:
Joined Nov 2015
2K Posts | 582+
A caravan on an island
The last race wasn't the whole season, take a look at that objectively AND also remember the tyre conspiracy where VR's front and rear were totally mismatched, how LUCKY was that?
Joined Apr 2015
6K Posts | 5K+
NJ
Absolutely incorrect. He was not "no more dangerous than other riders." He was more dangerous than anyone else out on the track in GP at that time. He died from an accident that was a product of his lack of regard for the dangers of racing.
Joined Apr 2015
6K Posts | 5K+
NJ
Irrelevant for the purposes of this discussion.
Point still stands that you were speaking from a bad position on the subject of outrageous risk and not winning without it.
Joined Jul 2011
1K Posts | 872+
Dont Know
Tire conspiracy against Rossi? What they spent the whole offseason developing the Yamaha only for a last minute tire change and rider vote? No wait that wasn't it.
Ok it must of been after 6 years of being on Michelin A spec rubber they demoted Rossi to a B spec rider. .... that's bad luck. Oh wait Rossi never suffered the 'bad luck' of being a B spec grid filler.
How about being taken out of a race by his team mate, Colin Edwards? Or being treated as test mule for Edwards? Nope.
How about ....... around in F1 cars thinking no one can challenge him as the mighty goat doctor, not developing the bike to suit the 'mismatched' rubber and failing throughout the season to work as hard as the rider that eventually prevailed.
This so called example of bad luck attributed to none other than the golden goose I must say is pretty amusing compared to the thousands of other examples you could have used.
Similar threads
