Was Prost a racer?

[wedge]

Discuss!

[Jag_Warrior]

I'm kinda confused. Alain? Uh, yeah. :confused:

But Jean Marie Prost? No, he never made it out of the kitchen at the restaurant where he worked.

[Knock-on]

I'm kinda confused. Alain? Uh, yeah. :confused:

But Jean Marie Prost? No, he never made it out of the kitchen at the restaurant where he worked.

Me Too :confused:

Alain, no doubt.

However, you can do drinking races starting with PROST!! before downing a Beer. :D

[keysersoze]

Prost's example of a completely professional approach to his craft was IMO the example Michael Schumacher followed. AP knew more than anyone of his time that success was more than just having driving talent. His training regimen was very forward-thinking. In addition, he knew how to fit with his team and, likewise, have them fit in with him. I think Prost practically invented this approach, perhaps gleaning a great deal from guys like Stewart, Clark, and Lauda.

He was so brilliant he didn't have to go wheel-to-wheel very often, which may have led some to think he wasn't a "racer."

On the other hand, a driver like Mansell couldn't maximize a race team quite like Alain, and therefore needed to make up for it by using all his driving skills. It was fun to watch because it's great to watch a driver go for it, while for Prost his behind-the-scenes work ethic made what he did during races look easy.

Of course, this is JMO.

[wedge]

Great analysis but would disagree with this:


Prost's example of a completely professional approach to his craft was IMO the example Michael Schumacher followed.

Schumi was a mixture of Prost and Senna but more likely to revert to attacking instincts.

[Saint Devote]

In terms of outright qualifying speed, Ayrton Senna was qucker - Prost said that he had never seen such a quick driver before. Senna's % pole is 40.4% versus Prost's 16.6%

But then following Prost since his European f3 days, I do not think pole position was as important as it was to Senna - albeit that once Senna had pole, of course Prost could not.

But they both accomplished similar result - bearing in mind Senna's career was cut short.

On wins Prost and Senna are at 25.6% and 25.5% respectively.

Prost it seems was the quicker of the two during a race because his percentage is 20.6% versus Senna 11.8%.

Prost had wonderful mechanical simpatico - the Lauda / Prost days being fondly remembered by the Mclaren mechanics. Prost is well known to be the gentlest ever on the brakes.

In all I would say that the most glaring indication that Prost was a racer was his competitiveness with Senna. In the end they became close friends once Prost retired and I doubt that Senna, being someone so extremely selfish would have sacrificed his friendship on someone that did not deserve it.

So for me, Prost was indeed a racer - he just made it look so damn easy.

[52Paddy]

In a nutshell, my own view: He was a top notch racing driver. It depends on how you categorise the word 'racer' though, in order to answer your question. The way I see it, many different areas make up a racing driver, and ultimately, a race winner. Prost had the whole package and the results speak for themselves. I've never really watched Prost in action because he was before my time (before I became an F1 fan that is!) But from my own (little) experience of him, I can admit that he was not as flamboyant on the track as say Mansell or Senna. On the other hand, one could argue that Senna and Mansell had completely contrasting mental approaches to Prost.

I seem to recall that Prost was shoved (by Senna) towards a pit wall at some 180mph during a race in the late 80s possibly. Afaik, Prost yielded to Senna, who went on to win. After the race, Prost was quoted as saying "[to Senna]I never realised you wanted the title so bad to risk your [my?] life for it. You can just have it if thats the case." - or something to that general effect.

He was a great racing driver. But comparing him to Senna, Mansell and other rivals of his is a difficult call. He might not have had the raw pace of Senna, or the determination of Mansell, but his approach was different. I guess I could say more mature/confined, but they wouldn't be quite the right words. Even if he wasn't as quick as his rivals outright, he avoided the many major accidents Mansell had to encounter and the ultimate accident which Senna fatally encountered.

A clever driver is what I may class him as.

[Saint Devote]

I have always assessed Prost to have been the post-Jim Clark - "Jim Clark".

In my view Clark was the consumate driver of all time and therefore the greatest driver in history.

He had the aggression of Senna, the brainy measured approach and mechanical sympathy of Prost, yet also the precision and calmness of Lauda and so on as well as the love and passion for racing that he competed on weekends when there was no grand prix.

And he achieved the results of greatness measured in every way.

I never saw him race as I was a baby when he was so tragically lost at Hockenheim.

Recently there was an articale in the Motorsport with his former girlfriend being interviewed about him. I was not at all surprised but pleasantly reassured in my opinion of him.

How lucky we were to have had a driver in racing like the late Jim Clark - even his name was ideal!

:-]

[keysersoze]

Great analysis but would disagree with this:



Schumi was a mixture of Prost and Senna but more likely to revert to attacking instincts.

I completely agree. MS was a "give no quarter" driver like Senna. I would not say that Schumacher's ethics approached Prost's at all. I just think that MS thought about preparing for a race, and participating in a team, in the same manner as AP.

[Valve Bounce]

I don't think Prost ever had the speed that Jim Clark had. If my memory serves me correctly, his first lap at Monaco in 1962 was astounding and Sterling paid tribute to Clark for that amazing lap.

[DexDexter]

I seem to recall that Prost was shoved (by Senna) towards a pit wall at some 180mph during a race in the late 80s possibly. Afaik, Prost yielded to Senna, who went on to win. After the race, Prost was quoted as saying "[to Senna]I never realised you wanted the title so bad to risk your [my?] life for it. You can just have it if thats the case." - or something to that general effect.

.

That was in Estoril in 1988, Prost was passing Senna and Senna really lost it. That was the beginning of the feud between those two. Prost didn't yield, so he was a racer!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjfwRrvtlNw

[Ranger]

He was a great racing driver. But comparing him to Senna, Mansell and other rivals of his is a difficult call.

Prost vs. Senna is a different issue, but Prost was much better than Mansell.

1990 - Prost and Mansell are team-mates at Ferrari.

Prost 71 points, 5 wins.
Mansell 37 points, 1 win.

That's a pretty clear winner there.

[BeansBeansBeans]

Prost is arguably the best ever, though he wasn't a racer in the stereotypical single-minded daredevil mould. He was his own man.

Prost is arguably the best ever, though he wasn't a racer in the stereotypical single-minded daredevil mould. He was his own man.

Excellent analysis.

[wedge]

The thing that gets me is that Prost - according to Senna - instigated a pact that whoever led into the first corner should win the race. Senna would later re-interpret the agreement for his own ends at Imola 1989 thus ending whatever left of their relationship to even lower depths.

I never could get my head round this. Prost being the political mastermind behind closed doors or perhaps felt threatened by Senna needed a leash. Perhaps a mixture of both.

[nigelred5]

IMHO, the nickname, "The Professor" was well earned and discriptive of his approach to racing. Prost was a big picture racer. Senna raced on emotion, more of a big hammer type driver. Prost did what he did to improve the team and the car in order to make the car easier to drive fast. I agree, Schumacher was far more of this type of driver. Prost and Mansell were more likely to tighten up the belts and heavy down the right foot to make do with what he had and drive the wheels off the car. Prost rarely looked tired when he got out of the car. Nige could barely lift himself from the car after a hard fought race. Senna and mansell were the type to let it all hang out, throw the car around and drive by everyone he could with emotion. Prost was much more methodical and willing to wait for opportunity, instead of forcing the hand.

[V12]

I always perceived (rightly or wrongly), Prost to be of the Jackie Stewart school of "win going as slowly as possible". But when he really needed to (e.g. after a delay of some sort), he could drive. Spa (1986 or 1987?) sticks in the (second-hand) memory, as does Kyalami 1982.

[ClarkFan]

I always perceived (rightly or wrongly), Prost to be of the Jackie Stewart school of "win going as slowly as possible". But when he really needed to (e.g. after a delay of some sort), he could drive. Spa (1986 or 1987?) sticks in the (second-hand) memory, as does Kyalami 1982.

Stewart is the comparison that comes to mind for me, as well. Stewart also was a driver who captured relatively few poles relative to the number of races he won and was noted as a smooth driver (winning Monaco in 1971 with no rear brakes!). Even after Clark's death, except for 1971, there was usually another driver regarded as being "faster" than Stewart. But none of those drivers won 27 races and 3 championships.

Comparisons with Lauda are also interesting, especially given how Lauda took the 1984 championship from Prost. I suspect that was a powerful learning experience for Prost on the importance of strategy over raw speed in becoming World Champion.

ClarkFan

[Saint Devote]

I completely agree. MS was a "give no quarter" driver like Senna. I would not say that Schumacher's ethics approached Prost's at all. I just think that MS thought about preparing for a race, and participating in a team, in the same manner as AP.

Prost just correctly understood that 2 into 1 does not go.

And Prost raced in an era that was far more competitive than Schumacher's.

[Saint Devote]

Prost vs. Senna is a different issue, but Prost was much better than Mansell.

1990 - Prost and Mansell are team-mates at Ferrari.

Prost 71 points, 5 wins.
Mansell 37 points, 1 win.

That's a pretty clear winner there.

Mansell's percentage of poles to races is higher than Prost's and in his championship and Prost never dominated in any championship year the way Mansell did.

On the day, Mansell had the measure of everyone including Senna.

Perhaps the Ferrari suited Prost better.

But in a racing situation I would back Mansell versus Prost anyday.

I would not say that Mansell was better than Prost but I also frown on saying that Prost was better.

[Saint Devote]

Prost is arguably the best ever, though he wasn't a racer in the stereotypical single-minded daredevil mould. He was his own man.

And Senna was someone that could be pushed around?

Prost cannot be considered the best ever simply because his results do not warrant such a description - hence the "arguably best ever" note.

[Saint Devote]

Stewart is the comparison that comes to mind for me, as well. Stewart also was a driver who captured relatively few poles relative to the number of races he won and was noted as a smooth driver (winning Monaco in 1971 with no rear brakes!). Even after Clark's death, except for 1971, there was usually another driver regarded as being "faster" than Stewart. But none of those drivers won 27 races and 3 championships.

Comparisons with Lauda are also interesting, especially given how Lauda took the 1984 championship from Prost. I suspect that was a powerful learning experience for Prost on the importance of strategy over raw speed in becoming World Champion.

ClarkFan

The Mclaren attitude of the drivers sorting it out worked and Lauda / Prost were far more mature than Alonso / Hamilton.

I reckon that of they had approached 2007, then Alonso could have been champion in 2007 and Hamilton 2008.

One thing for sure is that Raikonnen ought to have thanked Ron Dennis for being inept at managing Mclaren in 2007.

[keysersoze]

Mansell's percentage of poles to races is higher than Prost's and in his championship and Prost never dominated in any championship year the way Mansell did.

On the day, Mansell had the measure of everyone including Senna.

Perhaps the Ferrari suited Prost better.

But in a racing situation I would back Mansell versus Prost anyday.

I would not say that Mansell was better than Prost but I also frown on saying that Prost was better.

Most observers agree that the ONLY true way to compare two drivers is in the same car. Well, Prost and Mansell were in the same car! Game over--by a significant margin.

Mansell racked up the lion's share (pun intended) of his wins in a car that had a profound advantage, and with a teammate who for the most part readily deferred to him (uber-team player Riccardo Patrese). And there was a period when RP was every bit Nigel's equal.

I'd say Mansell's battles against Nelson Piquet was won by the Brazilian--but only just--because NP managed a championship.

Prost won in Ferraris and Renaults that weren't dominant, and had to fight against sublime talents in Senna and Lauda when he did have a dominant car. His last championship was a cakewalk, I'll grant you that.

In their time together at Lotus, Elio de Angelis was decidedly more successful in their five seasons together--the Italian at least managed to win a couple of races, while Nigel had to wait until '85 to win in a Williams. And speaking of his first stint at Williams, Nigel came on at the end to get a couple of wins, but Keke won that battle, finishing 3rd in the championship.

[Valve Bounce]

Did you know that Prost was known within his team as Tadpole?

[ArrowsFA1]

Prost is arguably the best ever, though he wasn't a racer in the stereotypical single-minded daredevil mould. He was his own man.
:up:

On the day, Mansell had the measure of everyone including Senna.
On his day, and in the Williams FW14B, perhaps, but otherwise the likes of Senna and Prost more than had the measure of Mansell.

I wouldn't consider Prost the "best ever", but I do think that he is somewhat overlooked when it comes to the greats of the sport. Whether that's because of the understated way he appeared to go racing, as opposed to the passion and drama that were so obvious with other drivers, I don't know but IMHO he stands up there with the very best.

[ShiftingGears]

He beat more teammates that were or would-be world champions than any other driver.
Rosberg
Senna
Mansell
Lauda

He just isn't remembered as much as Mansell or Senna (IMO) because he was not as spectacular.

[wedge]

The Mclaren attitude of the drivers sorting it out worked and Lauda / Prost were far more mature than Alonso / Hamilton.

I reckon that of they had approached 2007, then Alonso could have been champion in 2007 and Hamilton 2008.

One thing for sure is that Raikonnen ought to have thanked Ron Dennis for being inept at managing Mclaren in 2007.

Prost had far too much respect for Lauda.

Regardless, Alonso would still resort some sort of dirty trick or other.


Prost won in Ferraris and Renaults that weren't dominant, and had to fight against sublime talents in Senna and Lauda when he did have a dominant car. His last championship was a cakewalk, I'll grant you that.

Prost was written off as a WDC no-hoper by the French media becaise he didn't win in a Renault.

[Ranger]

He beat more teammates that were or would-be world champions than any other driver.
Rosberg
Senna
Mansell
Lauda

He just isn't remembered as much as Mansell or Senna (IMO) because he was not as spectacular.

And Damon Hill comprehensively as well.

[Ranger]

His last championship was a cakewalk, I'll grant you that.


...against a future world champion team-mate, not to be sniffed at!

[ClarkFan]

Did you know that Prost was known within his team as Tadpole?
Because he was a little Frog?

:p

ClarkFan

[ClarkFan]

The Mclaren attitude of the drivers sorting it out worked and Lauda / Prost were far more mature than Alonso / Hamilton.

I reckon that of they had approached 2007, then Alonso could have been champion in 2007 and Hamilton 2008.

One thing for sure is that Raikonnen ought to have thanked Ron Dennis for being inept at managing Mclaren in 2007.
Sorry, but in my view "letting the drivers sort it out" is just a recipe for team disaster. That is what led to the Senna/Prost collision in 1989 (and really the reprise in 1990); Piquet and Mansell taking points off each other in 1986; and Montoya and Ralf Schumacher putting both Williams out of races by hitting each other.

ClarkFan

[52Paddy]

Prost vs. Senna is a different issue, but Prost was much better than Mansell.

1990 - Prost and Mansell are team-mates at Ferrari.

Prost 71 points, 5 wins.
Mansell 37 points, 1 win.

That's a pretty clear winner there.

I don't mean to bring back a dead dog but look at the 1986 and 1987 world championship. In my opinion, this was Mansell's high point in his career which just went so wrong and the very wrong time. The puncture in '86 handed the title to Prost and Mansell's '87 accident left him in no place to push Piquet for the title in the end.

I'm not trying to say that Mansell was any better than Prost. But I do believe that, during those years, he was as quick. After that, it was a regression for Mansell until he got a car which, I wholly admit, was way ahead of the other machines and made the job easy for Mansell. I always see it as a 'consolation title.'

From this I can kind of deduce that Alain Prost had a consistancy to his career which always made him perform well given the circumstances he had to deal with every year. A bad car, he would drive to the limit. A good car, he would challenge for the title in. But he never 'appeared' to have the raw speed of his rivals (Mansell, Senna) when they were on form. But, Mansell certainly, only stayed 'on form' for a limited time before he was eventually spoon-fed race wins.

[wedge]

I'm not trying to say that Mansell was any better than Prost. But I do believe that, during those years, he was as quick. After that, it was a regression for Mansell until he got a car which, I wholly admit, was way ahead of the other machines and made the job easy for Mansell. I always see it as a 'consolation title.'


I'd put Piquet ahead of Mansell, and I'm speaking as a Mansell fan!

Piquet could see the bigger picture, he worked on his set ups more, more willing to work with Patrick Head whereas Mansell relied more on testosterone - the accident in Japan '87 being a fine example, concerned too much with gamesmanship by setting quick lap times during free practice.

Someone mentioned Mansell health, well that crash didn't help. It affected the rest of his career (titanium skid blocks, sparks flying because of no regulation ride height) despite for being know for his incredible upper body strength which helped with his driving style and even drove with a small steering ratio!

[Saint Devote]

:up:

On his day, and in the Williams FW14B, perhaps, but otherwise the likes of Senna and Prost more than had the measure of Mansell.

I wouldn't consider Prost the "best ever", but I do think that he is somewhat overlooked when it comes to the greats of the sport. Whether that's because of the understated way he appeared to go racing, as opposed to the passion and drama that were so obvious with other drivers, I don't know but IMHO he stands up there with the very best.

You should rather not cherry pick. Mansell did connect with the 1992 Williams and dominated a championship in a manner that neither Prost or Senna ever managed.

Even in 1991, Senna was the champion but won 6 gp's and Mansell won 5 gps.

Mansell in a straight fight beat Senna in the Mclaren as well as Piquet and so on. And even in that great fight in Spain [Portugal?] where Senna beat Mansell to the line by a few centimeters - how can anyone declare one driver superior? No.

Championships can revolve on a single moment and Mansell would have won at least two - for example remember the tire blowout in Adelaide.

Mansell beats Prost on percentages in pole positions and Senna in fastest laps achieved.

Senna is 10 gp wins ahead of Mansell and Prost is 10 ahead of Senna. Both Senna and Prost spent far more seasons in better equipment and Mansell demonstrated what he could do in good equipment.

Anyone watching Mansell at Silverstone cannot in all seriousness say that Senna could have done better in an identical car.

I do not consider Senna or Prost overall better than Mansell. They had their strengths and the cards fell the way they did.

But I supported Mansell and neither of the other two because I saw something about Nigel that resonated with me and upon reflection I am so pleased that I did.

[Saint Devote]

I'd put Piquet ahead of Mansell, and I'm speaking as a Mansell fan!

Piquet could see the bigger picture, he worked on his set ups more, more willing to work with Patrick Head whereas Mansell relied more on testosterone - the accident in Japan '87 being a fine example, concerned too much with gamesmanship by setting quick lap times during free practice.

Someone mentioned Mansell health, well that crash didn't help. It affected the rest of his career (titanium skid blocks, sparks flying because of no regulation ride height) despite for being know for his incredible upper body strength which helped with his driving style and even drove with a small steering ratio!

Piquet was a manipulative insecure person while Nigel's teammate - and after Nigel walloped him good at Silverstone all Piquet could do was make insulting remarks against Nigel's wife.

Not to forget the similar treatment he gave out to Senna.

Mansell relied on his ability and to undermine that is something no Red 5 fan would ever do.

What do you think Senna did when he used to go out to reclaim a pole psoition? NO different to Nigel.

And that accident in Japan left Mansell temporarily unable to walk!

Mansell was as tough as any driver could be. In his forst drives for Lotus he climbed out of the car with raciing fuel burns because the fuel tank was leaking. All could see the safety belts flapping around because Mansell was lifting himself for some of the lap to get out of the fuel bath. I think Nigel finished 6th that day.

Then there was Nigel's ff days when he broke his neck but, against his doctors advice he raced again, in pain, six weeks afterwards.

Mansell did not come from a wealthy banking background like Piquet. He did it himself, taking financial risk because he had ironclaed confidence in the ability he demonstrated in the junior formulae.

Mansell was like Alan Jones and others of his generation. They were tough and they raced with every ounce of their being.

Nigel loved his fans and the fans loved him back. When he says that at Silverstone he was prepared to die in order to win, Nigel means it.

What a true racing driver he is :-]

[Saint Devote]

I don't mean to bring back a dead dog but look at the 1986 and 1987 world championship. In my opinion, this was Mansell's high point in his career which just went so wrong and the very wrong time. The puncture in '86 handed the title to Prost and Mansell's '87 accident left him in no place to push Piquet for the title in the end.

I'm not trying to say that Mansell was any better than Prost. But I do believe that, during those years, he was as quick. After that, it was a regression for Mansell until he got a car which, I wholly admit, was way ahead of the other machines and made the job easy for Mansell. I always see it as a 'consolation title.'

From this I can kind of deduce that Alain Prost had a consistancy to his career which always made him perform well given the circumstances he had to deal with every year. A bad car, he would drive to the limit. A good car, he would challenge for the title in. But he never 'appeared' to have the raw speed of his rivals (Mansell, Senna) when they were on form. But, Mansell certainly, only stayed 'on form' for a limited time before he was eventually spoon-fed race wins.

Spoon fed?

Then why not point the same remark in the direction of Senna and Schumacher? They also had cars that were superior and for longer than Mansell.

It is the best drivers that are able to put such a car to its greatest use.

Why hasnt anyone ever declared how 2004 was a "consolation" year for Schumacher? No. Instead we hear how wonderful and marvelous and great he was. Well, Mansell in HIS "consolation" year was even better at it than Schumacher - and Schumacher never had the competition that Mansell had to fight all his career.

[Ranger]

Saint Devote, on the contrary it is you who is cherry picking.

Mansell was beaten by five team-mates. In the same car.

How can he be considered better than Senna and Prost with a record like that?

[Roamy]

Prost was very very fast - very very conservative - and very very slow in the rain because of this.

But he lives today a great life and has a great record. Good for him. A gentleman and a racer. I liken him to Alonso !

[Ranger]

Prost was very very fast - very very conservative - and very very slow in the rain because of this.

But he lives today a great life and has a great record. Good for him. A gentleman and a racer. I liken him to Alonso !

I think his collision with Didier Pironi at Hockenheim in 1982 affected his wet weather driving more than anything.

[DexDexter]

And that accident in Japan left Mansell temporarily unable to walk!

]

So he fooled you, the guy was acting most of the time, for example in Dallas 1984 he "passed out" next to his Lotus. He was weird in that regard, sometimes it looked like he had a broken leg when he went to the podium and the next moment he would be all right again. Very quick driver on his day but not up to Prost's standards.

[ArrowsFA1]

Both Senna and Prost spent far more seasons in better equipment...
Have you wondered why?

Piquet was a manipulative insecure person...
He was not unique in that respect.

Mansell did not come from a wealthy banking background like Piquet. He did it himself, taking financial risk because he had ironclaed confidence in the ability he demonstrated in the junior formulae.
Piquet's father was a politician and did not approve of his son's racing. Nelson used his mother's maiden name to keep his racing secret from his father who refused to fund him (link (http://www.grandprix.com/gpe/drv-piqnel.html)).

Yes, Mansell made sacrifices and was certainly determined, but as a racing driver he was (and is) certainly not unique in that respect. It's just that a lot more has been made of Mansell's "struggle against the odds".

I supported Mansell and neither of the other two because I saw something about Nigel that resonated with me...
That's fair enough. We all have our favourites :)

[Valve Bounce]

That's fair enough. We all have our favourites :)

.............and foibles. :p :

[wedge]

Piquet was a manipulative insecure person while Nigel's teammate - and after Nigel walloped him good at Silverstone all Piquet could do was make insulting remarks against Nigel's wife.

Not to forget the similar treatment he gave out to Senna.

Mansell relied on his ability and to undermine that is something no Red 5 fan would ever do.

You're just being blinkered, just like a Schumi fan who sees Schumi can do no wrong. I'm quite happy to recognise a driver has strengths and weaknesses.

Mansell learnt from Piquet on what it takes to be WDC.

Mansell would only go back to Williams if he was #1 driver, played the same mind games with Patrese regarding set ups as Piquet did to him. Mario Andretti called Mansell the worst team mate he ever had because Mansell wanted exclusive treament from Newman-Haas.

Doesn't sound like the same Mansell in the mid-80s begging for parity at Williams.

[jens]

Well, as it has already been discussed here, Mansell was in my view definetely inferior to Prost and Senna. As for that famous 1990 AP vs NM team-mate battle, then yes - Mansell was capable of being as quick as anyone on his day and was very fast in 1990 as well. But he was never quite as consistent as Prost. Mansell is rated extremely highly due to his spectacular style, but less notice is given to the fact that he tended to make stupid mistakes from time-to-time as well.