Prost v schumacher v hill in 94.
Discussion
I had a thought on this earlier.
We often think what if senna had not passed but what
If prost had not retired and stayed at williams.
If senna had taken a sabbatical for a year.
How would it of played out?. Would the professor have had a 5th championship?
Alot of ifs and buts i know. I think it would have been a terrific 3 way championship.
We often think what if senna had not passed but what
If prost had not retired and stayed at williams.
If senna had taken a sabbatical for a year.
How would it of played out?. Would the professor have had a 5th championship?
Alot of ifs and buts i know. I think it would have been a terrific 3 way championship.
He actually had a contract for 93 and 94. When Frank gave him an ultimatum and told him Senna was coming for 1994 he retired. I don't think it was cowardice even though it was perceived as such but he said at the time that Williams was worse equipped even than McLaren in 1988/89 to deal with the explosive pairing and maintain equality and he simply didn't need the stress of dealing with it.
I think he was right in saying that as Williams was a much smaller operation than McLaren.
Ironically he and Senna then became great friends at the end of 1993 once the competition was removed (though Senna's poignant last radio message at Imola encouraged Prost to come back) which continued until May 1st. This aspect of their relationship is barely covered and they actually did collaborate quite closely on development with Renault in early 1994.
Prost would probably have won in 1994 as he was a wily old fox. Everyone remembers he won five championships but forgets he was in strong contention and lost at least four more right at the end of the season.
I think he was right in saying that as Williams was a much smaller operation than McLaren.
Ironically he and Senna then became great friends at the end of 1993 once the competition was removed (though Senna's poignant last radio message at Imola encouraged Prost to come back) which continued until May 1st. This aspect of their relationship is barely covered and they actually did collaborate quite closely on development with Renault in early 1994.
Prost would probably have won in 1994 as he was a wily old fox. Everyone remembers he won five championships but forgets he was in strong contention and lost at least four more right at the end of the season.
cgt2 said:
Prost would probably have won in 1994 as he was a wily old fox. Everyone remembers he won five championships but forgets he was in strong contention and lost at least four more right at the end of the season.
Say again? 
. Four I believe…
I’m not so sure how well he’d have fared in ‘94.
That Williams was a pig at the start of the season and who knows what would have happened had Imola not occurred….IINM, Newey has said that the ‘plank’ mandated to be attached to the bottom of the car for safety reasons actually helped Williams sort their handling issues out by raising the ride height.
But he did prefer a passive car to an active one, so it would possibly have suited him more than his title-winning ‘93 car….like all these things, we’ll never know.
Agreed, but Schuey was penalised to hell and back in 94 and would and could have won it rounds earlier than he did, what he did was wrong and daft, but in reality it was won ages before, I think the FIA were just looming for ways to penalise him after finding the fuuel line thing and the software issues.
But hey it was a Briatore/Walkinshaw run team, so what would you expect
But hey it was a Briatore/Walkinshaw run team, so what would you expect
LukeBrown66 said:
Dernie seems to think he would have won races in a Ligier, I dont doubt him.
I do.In the first three races of '94, the Ligier was about 3 seconds off pole position in qualifying. It was similar towards the end of the season.
Of course, it was being driven by Olivier Panis and Eric Bernard and neither were exactly Fangio, but even Prost couldn't make up 3 seconds.
LukeBrown66 said:
Agreed, but Schuey was penalised to hell and back in 94 and would and could have won it rounds earlier than he did, what he did was wrong and daft, but in reality it was won ages before, I think the FIA were just looming for ways to penalise him after finding the fuuel line thing and the software issues.
But hey it was a Briatore/Walkinshaw run team, so what would you expect
Makes you wonder if Benetton had just brought him in for that stop-go at Silverstone, he’d have picked up useful points there, Hungary and Italy too. It would have been over way before Australia But hey it was a Briatore/Walkinshaw run team, so what would you expect
pablo said:
Makes you wonder if Benetton had just brought him in for that stop-go at Silverstone, he’d have picked up useful points there, Hungary and Italy too. It would have been over way before Australia
The stewards phucked up on this one.The penalty Schumi was supposed to have originally serve was to start at the back of the grid, but the officials took a long time to sort out a penalty and ended up imposing a 5 second stop-go penalty.
LukeBrown66 said:
Agreed, but Schuey was penalised to hell and back in 94 and would and could have won it rounds earlier than he did, what he did was wrong and daft, but in reality it was won ages before, I think the FIA were just looming for ways to penalise him after finding the fuuel line thing and the software issues.
But hey it was a Briatore/Walkinshaw run team, so what would you expect
Overtaking cars on the warm-up lap had gone on before. It's not just the traction control controversy but earlier that year Flavio Briatore wrote an open letter questioning Max Mosley's leadership in the wake of Imola. As we would later see with McLaren 2008 MM took things rather personally and arguably abused his position.But hey it was a Briatore/Walkinshaw run team, so what would you expect
However the stewards never explicitly stated how the penalty would be applied. Benetton argued the 5 seconds would be applied after the race whereas the officials argued back it was a stop-go penalty.
It's obvious Schumi was told to stay out because whilst the team and officials are arguing back and forth you don't want your driver unnecessarily penalised if you can help it.
I have no real desire to discuss individual incidents, but I do think the FIA were very angry about the Jos refuel thing at Hockenheim and rightly or wrongly were determined to take issue with Benetton and Schumacher as they pretty knew they had been cheating for races.
This was post Senna and post the acrimony of 89 and 90 so they did not want this rubbish anymore. Witness how they treated Schumacher in 97. G+For what was arguably a similar incident.
This was post Senna and post the acrimony of 89 and 90 so they did not want this rubbish anymore. Witness how they treated Schumacher in 97. G+For what was arguably a similar incident.
LukeBrown66 said:
Agreed, but Schuey was penalised to hell and back in 94 and would and could have won it rounds earlier than he did, what he did was wrong and daft, but in reality it was won ages before, I think the FIA were just looming for ways to penalise him after finding the fuuel line thing and the software issues.
But hey it was a Briatore/Walkinshaw run team, so what would you expect
So you're saying that if Schumacher hadn't taken matters into his own hands and cheated his way to the title then the teams collaborative cheating with traction control and illegal re fueling would have won him the title anyway.But hey it was a Briatore/Walkinshaw run team, so what would you expect
Either way he would have/did cheat his way to the title in 94 in the most deplorable way
I don't know for sure, only a select few like Brawn, Braitore, engineers know if they really were cheating, but the fuel thing was deplorable and could have had very serious consequences and Walkinshaw should never have been allowed to work in F1 again if he was the one that made that decision.
My point I guess is that the whole team played the victim role due to them seemingly constantly being looked on as cheating, so Schuey would have done anything to win, he had already shown that in junior stuff, so it was no shock he did what he did. We will never know if HE nkew his car was damaged beyond repair while turning into that turn into Damon, same as Damon could not have known, all he did was see him run wide and see the dust from a possible accident, he was not righ behind when it happened
My point I guess is that the whole team played the victim role due to them seemingly constantly being looked on as cheating, so Schuey would have done anything to win, he had already shown that in junior stuff, so it was no shock he did what he did. We will never know if HE nkew his car was damaged beyond repair while turning into that turn into Damon, same as Damon could not have known, all he did was see him run wide and see the dust from a possible accident, he was not righ behind when it happened
It's an interesting question.
If prost had somehow managed to continue to veto senna at williams as he did in 93 and had stayed there in 94, would senna have taken a year off in 94 and then gone to ferrari in 95 as todt offered, or to williams in 95? Would Senna have stayed at mclaren for 94?
Would prost have suffered at imola? Walked the championship? The car was a dog at first but came into its own as we know...so he would have been a contender for sure.
But then he shouldn't really have won in '86.... that was comfortably Mansell's to lose - given in australia he only needed to finish fourth to win, but prost or piquet had to win to seal the championship - and as fate would have it, that exploding tyre did lose it for mansell. If Williams then hadn't called Piquet in from the lead for a precautionary pit stop, piquet would more than likely have won the race & championship.
89 should have gone to the wire in australia were it not for FIA/balestre bullsh*t re: suzuka, but who would have won it? Wit the title still undecided, would prost still have pulled out due to the weather, and would senna have still spun out with a championship at stake?
Lots of what ifs, could haves, and should haves, and we'll never know...
If prost had somehow managed to continue to veto senna at williams as he did in 93 and had stayed there in 94, would senna have taken a year off in 94 and then gone to ferrari in 95 as todt offered, or to williams in 95? Would Senna have stayed at mclaren for 94?
Would prost have suffered at imola? Walked the championship? The car was a dog at first but came into its own as we know...so he would have been a contender for sure.
cgt2 said:
Muzzer79 said:
Say again? .
Four I believe…
Slip of the keyboard. He really should have had six at least, he had the upper hand over Lauda all season when he lost by a 0.5 point... Four I believe…
89 should have gone to the wire in australia were it not for FIA/balestre bullsh*t re: suzuka, but who would have won it? Wit the title still undecided, would prost still have pulled out due to the weather, and would senna have still spun out with a championship at stake?
Lots of what ifs, could haves, and should haves, and we'll never know...
Edited by GCH on Wednesday 23 February 16:38
I never understand why people say others SHOULD have won titles when someone else did, it does not work like that, the man with the most points wins the title regardless of bad luck.
Prost was the standout driver in F1 from pretty much 83 until about 1990. Piquet, Mansell, Senna challenged him ad won titles in better cars or with better reliability but most of the time the man to beat was Prost.
Lauda taught him a massive amount in 84 about winning races not poles, yet he often qualified the TAG McLaren higher than he ought to against cars with far better qualifying pace, were it not for bad luck yes Mansell ought to have won in 86, but bad luck goes with good, Prost had bad luck too in 86, every drivers does most years, he had even worse in 87, and Mansell could have won that year too but had bad luck again aswell as a colossal car advantage both years.
I happen to think Prosts 86 titles is the most under rated in the history of the sport with Rosbergs in 82 and his sons in later years, allied to Scheckter in 79 in a car nowhere near as good as Ligier or Williams, and one or two other very low key titles.
Prost was the standout driver in F1 from pretty much 83 until about 1990. Piquet, Mansell, Senna challenged him ad won titles in better cars or with better reliability but most of the time the man to beat was Prost.
Lauda taught him a massive amount in 84 about winning races not poles, yet he often qualified the TAG McLaren higher than he ought to against cars with far better qualifying pace, were it not for bad luck yes Mansell ought to have won in 86, but bad luck goes with good, Prost had bad luck too in 86, every drivers does most years, he had even worse in 87, and Mansell could have won that year too but had bad luck again aswell as a colossal car advantage both years.
I happen to think Prosts 86 titles is the most under rated in the history of the sport with Rosbergs in 82 and his sons in later years, allied to Scheckter in 79 in a car nowhere near as good as Ligier or Williams, and one or two other very low key titles.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff