Luca D not keen on Alonso-Kimi pairing

Don´t worry, it was a silly joke.

I meant that McLaren won with the duo Prost/Senna when they had a dominant car. But in 1990 or 1991, with other good cars around there (the Ferrari and the Williams) they only had one top driver (Senna in this case). The question was if they could have dealt with the Ferrari and the Williams and at the same time hold a Senna/Prost war within the team.

 

I think so, yes. Alain was a master at car set up and development and would have made the McLaren better than it was. Prost was already fighting Senna for the WDC and taking points from him, what difference would it make if it were in a Ferrari or a McLaren. A fight is a fight.

 

Yes, but I mean: what would happen if Senna had to deal with Prost in the Ferrari and another driver as good (and as problematic for Senna) like Prost in the other McLaren?

BTW: do you think that Prost was better driver than Senna? You said that he was the Master of the Set-Up, and we have already seen that he was able to drive as fast (or close) as Senna.

 

Senna drove alongside 3 different WDCs as his teammate. It didn't seem to affect his ability to win races or championships. You are trying to create an issue where there is none.

It seems to me that your basic argument is the detrimental effects of having two drivers who don't get along with each other on the team. I think you will see that it is a rarity in F1 when two teammates actually do get along. It is far, far more common for two teammates to dislike each other. Why not? The only true barometer in f1 is your performance against your teammate as he is the only one with the same car as you (unless you are Michael Schumacher, then you can personally handpick a non-threatening teammate and then further handcuff him with contractual restrictions).

I have already given you two good examples of teams where the drivers hated each other (Prost/Senna at McLaren and Piquet/Mansell at Williams). In both cases, the teams went on to win WDCs and WCCs.

You can add Alonso/Hamilton to that argument. They outscored their opponents on the track and were only a silly Race Stewards call or two from winning both titles outright. As far as Alonso's departure, I would only point out that it is a relatively new phenomenon for drivers to stick with one team for any length of time as it is only recently that some teams have managed to stay at the front for any length of time. It wasn't long ago that teams took turns at the front of the pack and top drivers switched seats routinely trying to get into the best possible environment.

There is no right or wrong way to win championships. Titles have been won in many ways. The Prost/Senna pairing was the most successful driver pairing in F1 history, Regardless of their attitudes towards each other, the team experienced unparalleled success and that is why they're in the sport in the first place.

 

No problem with that, but hardly Lewis's fault.

Well we can add this to the list I read here quite often:

Now let's see, what tack we taking with this nit-picking is it:
Oh he's a robot, he's Ron's baby, he's only any good because he is in a fast car, arrogant, dont like his dad ...etc anything.

To some whatever he does there will alway's a be arh, but...now he isn't up to it because Alonso isn't setting his car up.

I respect your take, however he got where he is off his own back ,he started out with other's on the same program he stood out and kept winning FA wasn't setting his car up he did it with own skill, and when he had a bad race his backer's didn't right him off.

The guy is a natural, and nit-picking his acheivement's, I dislike.

BTW I didn't realize Kimi was good at giving feedback for car development ..FA yes.

 

No, that´s only one part of the potential problem. But there are others: the team has to divide its resources and the drivers have to share the points the team can score.

It seems that we can´t give a coherent line to the debate. Think at this: sometimes teams with equal drivers win (Mansell/Piquet). Sometimes don´t (Mansell/Piquet, again). So, why don´t we play safe and have only one #1 driver?

Note that everybody here agrees on that. I´m just debating the pros and cons of both ways. Just for entertainment and educational purposes.

This one goes for racerx3317: if Prost was the Master of the Set-up, and as fast as Senna, wouldn´t Ron Dennis be happier only with Prost in the team? I mean, he would have won almost the same, but with less headaches, and Prost would have stayed in the team after 1989.

 

Hmm ok I get you. I think it would have been interesting to see to be sure. Senna at that point was the undisputed number one at McLaren, I doubt anyone would have been allowed to become a problem for Senna. He would have gotten the preferrentcial treatment, Alonso wanted. He could still have won the WDC but it would have been very difficult indeed.

I think Prost and Senna are hard to compare. They were completely different people outside of the car with different attitudes towards racing and life in general. Inside of the car, Prost could set up and indentify problems with the car and have it always perfect on race day, if not be as close as possible. He also rarely made mistakes during the race and only drove as fast as he had to. Senna, on the other hand was mechanically very sensitive as well but in the race he seemed to be able to get something extra no one else had from within himself, not changing anything on the car. He seemed to adapt to a car better than anyone, instead of trying to change it. Also he was maximum attack all the time and spectaular to watch. Both ways were very effective, and it's really all down to personal taste. I do tend to lean toward Senna, but I think Prost was just as great. Senna was the the natural, Prost the master technician.

 

For 1988 Senna was signed to a multi-year deal, at Prost's suggestion, incidently. It was simple after 1989. Senna was signed, Prost was not. Also RD was in love with the idea of a superteam. Still is apparently.

 

Ted,

Senna only really had Prost as a WDC as a teammate. Mika was only for three races and long before he won the title. He was really wild then, if not blazing fast. Same goes for Damon Hill.

 

I understand what you are saying. His accomplishments are very impressive indeed. However much remains to be seen about him. Elevating him to Kimi's or Alonso's status at this point in his career is jumping the gun a bit though.

 

Virtually every team principal will tell you that his only concern is the WCC. That being the case, from the team's perspective who cares if the drivers split points so long as they maximize their points total for the team?

As Massa has proven two years in a row, having a mediocre driver alongside a great one can cost you the WCC...

 

+1

Nobody could drive around a problem like Senna did, Schumacher included.

 

Well, this is debateable. Sadly, the drivers´ championship is the one wich the average fan remembers.

 

Doesn't matter what public perception is, team principals run teams in their own best interests.

 

Not exactly: team principals´ bosses want to sell cars. And the drivers championship probably sells more cars.

 

Do you really believe that a F1 Car's winning increases sales by any significant amount? Toyota was number one in the U.S. in sales prior to any F1 involvement. The win on Sunday and sell on Monday is an almost 50 year old cliche. Really not true in todays automobile climate.

 

Ron Dennis and Frank Williams are in the business of winning championships. They, as well as every other team principal, insist that their primary goal is to win the WCC. Do you think they are not being honest??

 

No.



At least in the case of Ron Dennis: Mercedes-Benz owns half of the team, and I suppose that they have something to say about that.

I remember that a few years back Flavio Briattore said, after winning the drivers championship, that he didn´t give a **** for the drivers championship, he considered it, in his own words, something secondary created to make Ferrari happy. Of course he changed his mind after winning it too, and suddenly the constructors champonship became significant. Honesty in Formula 1? Ha!!

 

I suppose that its importance is very small. But I almost sure that Toyota, BMW or whatever is not there "pour le sport". They want to get some exposure.

 

I´m forgetting however that Constructors Championship has economical importance: it brings some FIA money. But I suppose that the primary objective of a team principal is not earning money.

 

Leaving aside teh fact that Mercedes does NOT own half the team, they are a minority shareholder, I am certain that Mercedes too cares more about the CONSTRUCTOR title than they do about the WDC. Mercedes is a constructor, in cas eyou didn't know.

Look, you are arguing your position here. The fact is that all the team principals and any of their automotive company partners will tell you that their primary concern is winning the WCC. Do they prefer to win the WDC? Sure they do but they subordinate that concern to ensuring that they win the WCC.

This is not my opinion, this is the stated policy of every F1 team. This has been discussed on these boards many, many times in teh past. The teams' primary concern is teh WCC, after all that is the TEAM title, you know?

 

BS As F1 teams are now sharing TV revenue with the F1 the Constructors championship is more important than ever. Constructors points bring in not only much, much needed revenue it also gives you credence to charge more for sponsorship. Money is required to build a fast car. Without it you'll be a back marker. F1 is more a business these days than it is a sport.

 

Well, nobody knows for sure the share wich Mercedes owns in McLaren. I´ve read many things about that, from 75% to 30%. In any case, it´s more than a minority shareholder.

Now a few remembrances: when Schumacher won the drivers championship Ford exploited it. At the same time I don´t remember seeing anywhere Renault advertisings talking about their Constructors Championship. In 1999, when Hakkinen won the WDC but McLaren-Mercedes lost the constructors championship, Mika appeared in spots on TV, etc... Everything payed by Mercedes-Benz. So I´d say that they care A LOT about the drivers championship.

From what I see, at least in Europe, the Drivers Championship is the important one for the big public (not necessarily for me). The Constructors Championship is just "for the petrolheads".

 

Yes, I fully agree, but as you are saying, money is not an objective, it´s a "mean" to build a fast car, appear on TV winning races and get more exposure for your brand and sell more cars. That´s the "business" in Formula 1.

 

I agree to a point but what most peope remember is the car the WDC won in. IMHO if the Team wins the WCC and another teams driver wins the WDC...I know which one I would remember. IE 1999