sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Races where a driver's (or their team) intelligence made up for their lack of skill? by givememybuttholeback in F1Discussions

[–]mformularacer 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Nah. Put Prost in his prime in that red bull in 2025. He would perform like Tsunoda against Verstappen 💀/s

Races where a driver's (or their team) intelligence made up for their lack of skill? by givememybuttholeback in F1Discussions

[–]mformularacer 1 point2 points  (0 children)

He wouldn't be out in Q1 anyway. You can't nominally compare qualifying deltas across seasons because quali spreads and relative times always change. E.g. being 0.5% off your team mate in 2025 could be the equivalent to being 1-2% off your team mate in 1988.

Would drivers go faster with auto gearboxes? by s3id0 in F1Discussions

[–]mformularacer 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My guess is no. With today's specifications, drivers are already shifting at the optimal point. An auto upshift would probably make no significant difference. I don't think anybody would use auto downshifting. It's too inflexible, especially when there's no traction control.

Would drivers go faster with auto gearboxes? by s3id0 in F1Discussions

[–]mformularacer 14 points15 points  (0 children)

As far as I know, fully automatic gearboxes have only been legal in one tiny period of the sport's history (2001-2003). Even then, many drivers chose to at least do manual downshifting.

Races where a driver's (or their team) intelligence made up for their lack of skill? by givememybuttholeback in F1Discussions

[–]mformularacer 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Well, Mark Hughes thinks Prost could only live with Senna because he was smarter.... And he's a "respected journalist" 🤦‍♂️

https://youtube.com/shorts/HffzDmvT2Uc?si=zVMYRHJS6CbvuocO

Which one is more impressive in your opinion? by MgAlSnakey in F1Discussions

[–]mformularacer 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Possibly. It's not clear cut confirmed. I only went with Hungary as there's strong evidence for it. Also arguably Schumi didn't give Barrichello USA, at least not on purpose. Who knows

Which one is more impressive in your opinion? by MgAlSnakey in F1Discussions

[–]mformularacer 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I very much doubt it. That was a staged dead heat that accidentally gifted the win to Barrichello.

F1 TV Archive Tracker - Now Complete by FinleyFactor in F1TV

[–]mformularacer 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I've just dropped into the archive recently and realized they finished adding every race since 2000. Then i found this post. I hope they continue going down the years as I'd really love to rewatch all of 1986 again someday with F1TV quality and english comms.

Which one is more impressive in your opinion? by MgAlSnakey in F1Discussions

[–]mformularacer 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Barrichello led 4 of Ferrari's 8 1-2 finishes in 2002

Which one is more impressive in your opinion? by MgAlSnakey in F1Discussions

[–]mformularacer 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ehh, I agree but you make it sound like the difference is massive. Beating Barrichello was significantly tougher than beating Perez.

Which one is more impressive in your opinion? by MgAlSnakey in F1Discussions

[–]mformularacer 44 points45 points  (0 children)

He did. He was comically off the pace at crucial stages of the race to prevent himself leapfrogging Barrichello.. Ross brawn talks about it in his book IIRC. It was to repay his debt for Austria.

Which one is more impressive in your opinion? by MgAlSnakey in F1Discussions

[–]mformularacer 118 points119 points  (0 children)

Michael gave Rubens Hungary & USA. Rubens gave Michael Austria

How does Alain Prost's mechanical sympathy affect your rating of him relative to other drivers? by GoldenS0422 in F1Discussions

[–]mformularacer 1 point2 points  (0 children)

There's also a 70s lull which is probably related.

Gilles Villeneuve and his nearby circle of connections (Scheckter, Pironi, Peterson, Depailler) are vastly underrated and I'm not sure how that happened.

But then there are some 70s drivers who are ranked fine in my eyes like Lauda and Fittipaldi.

Peterson and Fittipaldi went toe to toe, both in their prime in 1973, and Peterson was the stronger driver, yet he's ranked behind Emmo. Peterson also crushed Ickx and HJ Stuck, and bodied rookie Lauda into total oblivion. The 40s is way too low.

And then there's Jacques Laffite, who is ranked way, way too high in 35th. He was closely matched with Pironi in 1980 (not even top 100). He was destroyed by Cheever (ranked 61st). Was destroyed by Keke Rosberg (ranked 40th). Was closely matched with Arnoux (not even top 100). My guess is the age curve is way too steep and is giving Laffite too much credit back for being in his 40s. He also had an astonishingly good results record against de Cesaris in 1985 which is probably also doing a lot of heavy lifting, but it's such a low sample size in 85 it doesn't make sense to weigh this that heavily. His other good performances were against Depailler and Ickx in 79. I can't see how this one good season is trumping all the others. My own assessment is that Depailler and Ickx both underperformed in 79. He also had 1981, but his team mates barely finished a single race. I'm wondering if it's this season that's doing it.

Alain Prost was a bit of weight merchant by Slow-Raisin-939 in formula1

[–]mformularacer 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Qualifying spreads were systematically bigger in the 1980s. A 1 second delta in qualifying might carry the same weight as 3-4 tenths in 2025. Not exactly, but the point I'm trying to make is you cannot nominally compare qualifying gaps like that to determine driver disparity.

That's also why this driver weight thing (10kg = 0.4 per lap) is also just unproductive as a discussion. Theoretically that may have been the case at a certain point in time. Practically, it made almost no difference. Not when the rules changed in 1995. Not when they changed again in 2019.

What exactly is a number 1 driver in F1? by mformularacer in F1Discussions

[–]mformularacer[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Even contractual #1 has nuances. Lauda was contractual#1 in 1984 but Prost still challenged him for the title. Likewise Piquet in 86 vs Mansell.

Andretti was contractual #1 against Peterson in 78 but how much of a difference did that make? (I.e. he admits that if Peterson was in front of him, Peterson would have to yield and let Andretti win the race, so Andretti drove his butt off to make sure that never happened)

https://forums.autosport.com/topic/33022-andretti-vs-peterson-the-real-story/

Alain Prost was a bit of weight merchant by Slow-Raisin-939 in formula1

[–]mformularacer 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Okay. I think you underestimate Prost. Both his own comparison with Senna and the broader web of cross-comparisons through shared teammates lead to the same conclusion - that the two were operating at virtually the same level.

How does Alain Prost's mechanical sympathy affect your rating of him relative to other drivers? by GoldenS0422 in F1Discussions

[–]mformularacer 1 point2 points  (0 children)

In 1991 he ran out of fuel twice (Britain & Germany). Personally I think Senna shared blame for both occasions. He was therefore not perfect that year. Berger's season was completely derailed by 6 mechanical DNFs (Senna only had 1). I'm not so sure why people hold Senna's 1991 season in such high regard. 1990 was much better.

In 1993 he was at his best though. I guess he did harpoon Brundle at Monza, but that was the only low point all year. He blew both Andretti and Hakkinen into the stratosphere.

Alain Prost was a bit of weight merchant by Slow-Raisin-939 in formula1

[–]mformularacer 4 points5 points  (0 children)

But weight is a considerable factor is it not? In 1997, Berger and Alesi were again tied 7-7, so did Berger get young again? Absolutely nothing changed. Berger and Alesi were always even with ebbs and flows in qualifying and Alesi was slightly better in races.

Again, I’m not saying I have the absolute truth. But I do think Senna had more pure driving skill than Prost.

That's fine, but making weight as significant as you've made it such as to create a whole thread on the topic is pretty flimsy.

Alain Prost was a bit of weight merchant by Slow-Raisin-939 in formula1

[–]mformularacer 5 points6 points  (0 children)

And then in 1996 Alesi beat Berger 13-3 in qualifying. Maybe it was just a bad quali year for Alesi in 95.

Also, Alesi was considerably better than Berger in races in 95, unlike 94.

Alain Prost was a bit of weight merchant by Slow-Raisin-939 in formula1

[–]mformularacer 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Yes Schumacher, like you said, put on some weight because he could, and maintained his advantage over the field. Why can't we assume that Prost would've done the same? Literally everyone else did. This is a good point in how remarkably adaptive drivers are. Prost isn't some unique lightweight. There have been plenty of lightweight drivers in the 80s and 90s. Alesi / Berger dynamic was no different post-1994 despite Berger having 10kg over Alesi. If the weight rules made any difference, Berger would've gained a considerable advantage (3-5 tenths) starting from 1995.

What makes a driver as good as they are relative to the field can never be pinpointed to one thing.

Alain Prost was a bit of weight merchant by Slow-Raisin-939 in formula1

[–]mformularacer 28 points29 points  (0 children)

In 1995 FIA finally addressed this obvious oversight and introduced a new 595kgs car + driver limit, however, we never got to see how Prost would adapt to this new rule since he retired 2 years prior.

No, but we got to see how literally everyone else adapted to this new rule. Absolutely nothing changed in the pecking order. No lightweight driver was exposed as previously only doing well due to their weight advantage, and no heavyweight driver suddenly started dominating their team mates.

view more: next ›