collapse

* Welcome

Welcome to GPWizard F1 Forum!

GPWizard is the friendliest F1 forum you'll find anywhere. You have a host of new like-minded friends waiting to welcome you.

So what are you waiting for? Becoming a member is easy and free! Take a couple seconds out of your day and register now. We guarantee, you wont be sorry you did.

Click Here to become a full Member for Free

* User Info

 
 
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

* Newsletter

GPWizard F1 Forum Newsletter Email address:
Weekly
Fortnightly
Monthly

* Grid Game Deadlines

Qualifying

Race

* Shoutbox

Refresh History
  • Wizzo: :good:
    March 05, 2024, 11:44:46 PM
  • Dare: my chat button is onthe bottom rightWiz
    March 03, 2024, 11:58:24 PM
  • Wizzo: Yes you should see the chat room button at the bottom left of your screen
    March 02, 2024, 11:39:55 PM
  • Open Wheel: Is there a Chat room button or something to access “Race day conversation”
    March 02, 2024, 02:46:02 PM
  • Wizzo: The 2024 Grid Game is here!  :yahoo:
    January 30, 2024, 01:42:23 PM
  • Wizzo: Hey everybody - the shout box is back!  :D
    August 21, 2023, 12:18:19 PM

* Who's Online

  • Dot Guests: 358
  • Dot Hidden: 0
  • Dot Users: 0

There aren't any users online.

* Top Posters

cosworth151 cosworth151
16143 Posts
Scott Scott
14057 Posts
Dare Dare
12983 Posts
John S John S
11253 Posts
Ian Ian
9729 Posts

Author Topic: McLaren Had Problems With Senna, Prost, Raikkonen, Montoya, Perhaps The Problem  (Read 8870 times)

Offline Dare

I'm near as old as you SennaMan.I followed  F1 in the 60 and
the early 70's.When Sir JS retires I kind of strayed from it.
Funny I didn't start following it again until right after Senna
was killed when I finally got with the times and had cable tv
installed.
Mark Twain once opined, "it's easier to con someone than to convince them they've been conned."

Offline ForzaAmon

I think Mclaren (under RD) have only had a problem when Ron has a 'special' relationship with one of the drivers, Senna, Mika, Kimi and now LH have all been the favoured sons. Alonso's problem was (and is) failing to understand why a team wouldn't love him the most.

Offline rmassart

This is a really interesting thread to follow.

I think one thing that is missing is a more general view. Yes McLaren have had problems with many of their drivers. But then, other than Ferrari, they have been the most dominant team in the 30 years which means they have always employed the best of the best (well more or less). And unlike Ferrari they have generally not had a predefined Nr.1.

Lets look at some other teams. Remember Herbert at Benetton with Schumacher? That was a bit of a problem.

Montoya? He had problems at Williams as well.

Mansell and Piquet at Williams? Didn't realise they got on very much. Or Prost and Mansell at Ferrari?

The only reason Ferrari don't seem to have problems so much is because:

a) for the 10 years MS was there, there was only one driver that mattered.
b) before that they were nowhere to be seen for most of the 80s and 90s.
c) and before that Villeneuve and Pironi weren't exactly getting on

The nice, friendly, guys rarely win in F1. Coulthard, Herbert, Berger... (the list goes on I imagine) all exceptional drivers, but not ruthless enough when it mattered.

Conclusion: in a sport like F1 you can't expect to be loved by anyone. You're there to win. End of story.

Offline johnbull

We can't really look at Ferrari over the last decade alone.

If you think Ron has had a few fall outs with drivers, then take a look back at the days of Dragoni as Ferrari team manager. I don't know which driver he didn't fall out with.

Ferrari have been full of strife, internal squabbles and controversy from day 1. It is only in the Todt Schumacher era that things were different, simply because the second driver was employed under the express condition that he was just that - a second driver.

Another thing that annoys me is this business - particularly of Italian commentators - of comparing figures between Ferrari and Mc Laren. Ferrari have been around almost twice as long as Mc Laren so they should have more driver titles, and constructor titles, and wins, and points etc.

What if we took something like 1970 as a starting point; how would the figures compare then ? Is Alianora reading this ? ;) ;) ;) Pull your notes out Ali.

In conclusion, I'm sure Ron's a difficult bugger, but I think I'd rather be part of the Mc laren team than the Ferrari one.
Joe M. Anastasi.
JOHN BULL RACING.   MALTA.
www.johnbullmalta.com

Offline Steven Roy

If you look at Ferrari's history most of it is pretty pathetic.  In the 50s they did well and in the early 60s they won a couple of titles.  But between Surtees in 64 and Schumacher 36 years later they won 3 drivers titles.

If you look at the figures. 

Lotus during its existence won more drivers titles than Ferrari
Brabham during its won 4 drivers titles which is probably more than Ferrari.
Tyrrell during its existence as a team rather than a constructor won three titles the same as Ferrari in the same period.

Ferrari is nothing special for most of its existence.  In the 50s and early 60s it was successful and then there was 36 years of mainly garbage.

I don't know the figures for McLaren and Williams off hand but both were way more successful during their lifetime than Ferrari until Schumacher went to Ferrari.

Offline Alianora La Canta

What if we took something like 1970 as a starting point; how would the figures compare then ? Is Alianora reading this ? Wink Wink Wink Pull your notes out Ali. {johnbull - 2 comments ago}

*pulls notes out and barely manages to stop a paper avalanche - must tidy up soon...*

Starting from 1966 (McLaren's founding):

1966-1969 (inclusive): 0-0
1970s: 1-4
1980s: 4-2 (cumalatively 5-6)
1990s: 3-1 (cumalatively 8-7)
2000s: 1-6 (cumalatively 9-13)

Ferrari is unquestionably the most successful taken across McLaren's entire span (unless you hold that McLaren was the real winner in 2007 and 2008), though there is more consistency in McLaren's constructors' titles. You can depend on them winning a few times a decade, but Ferrari goes through some major peaks and troughs.
Percussus resurgio
@lacanta (Twitter)
http://alianoralacanta.tumblr.com (Blog/Tumblr)

Offline johnbull

Thanks Ali. I knew you'd have the answers. ;)

Won't be on here again till Monday as we're off to Italy racing, in a couple of hours. See "Other Sports".
Joe M. Anastasi.
JOHN BULL RACING.   MALTA.
www.johnbullmalta.com

Offline Alianora La Canta

Have fun, johnbull!
Percussus resurgio
@lacanta (Twitter)
http://alianoralacanta.tumblr.com (Blog/Tumblr)

Offline ForzaAmon

What if we took something like 1970 as a starting point; how would the figures compare then ? Is Alianora reading this ? Wink Wink Wink Pull your notes out Ali. {johnbull - 2 comments ago}

*pulls notes out and barely manages to stop a paper avalanche - must tidy up soon...*

Starting from 1966 (McLaren's founding):

1966-1969 (inclusive): 0-0
1970s: 1-4
1980s: 4-2 (cumalatively 5-6)
1990s: 3-1 (cumalatively 8-7)
2000s: 1-6 (cumalatively 9-13)

Ferrari is unquestionably the most successful taken across McLaren's entire span (unless you hold that McLaren was the real winner in 2007 and 2008), though there is more consistency in McLaren's constructors' titles. You can depend on them winning a few times a decade, but Ferrari goes through some major peaks and troughs.
Drivers Titles
70s is 2-3
80s is 5-0 to McLaren
90s is 4-0 to McLaren
00s is 1-6
 tot 12-9 in favour of McLaren

Re Brabham v Ferrari don't forget the Brabham team started in 64 when Surtees won for Ferrari making it 4-4 vs Ferrari during the life of the Brabham team (if you regard the Ecclestone mob as real Brabham)

Offline Steven Roy

I thought Brabham had been more successful than Ferrari and it turns out like Tyrrell they were no better than Ferrari.

Offline lkjohnson1950

I think Lotus had the most success over the shortest time frame. Who knows what they might have accomplished if Clark and Chapman hadn't died so prematurely. How many times did they roll out a car that made everything else instantly obsolete?

Lonny
Lonny

Offline John S

  • F1 Legend
  • ****
  • Date Registered: Jan 2007
  • Location: Lincolnshire, UK
  • Posts: 11253
  • 11550 credits
  • View Inventory
  • Send Money To John S
  • Max for 3rd title! - to see more Toto apoplexy.
I think Lotus had the most success over the shortest time frame. Who knows what they might have accomplished if Clark and Chapman hadn't died so prematurely. How many times did they roll out a car that made everything else instantly obsolete?

Lonny

Get ready for the new Honda to turn heads in Melbourne next year! ;)
Racing is Life - everything else is just....waiting. (Steve McQueen)

Offline lkjohnson1950

As in turn away to keep from frying eyes? :D
Lonny

Offline John S

  • F1 Legend
  • ****
  • Date Registered: Jan 2007
  • Location: Lincolnshire, UK
  • Posts: 11253
  • 11550 credits
  • View Inventory
  • Send Money To John S
  • Max for 3rd title! - to see more Toto apoplexy.
As in turn away to keep from frying eyes? :D

That's almost poetic.  :good:  

I just hope it's not prophetic as well, us Honda fans have been waiting too long.
Racing is Life - everything else is just....waiting. (Steve McQueen)

Offline lkjohnson1950

You can go all the way back to the 60s and Honda has never been able to design a good chassis. I always hope for a breakthrough, but...

Lonny
Lonny

 


SimplePortal 2.3.6 © 2008-2014, SimplePortal
Menu Editor Pro 1.0 | Copyright 2013, Matthew Kerle