Not again with this Ted...... The 88/89 Mclaren Hondas would have been just as dominant and successful had either Prost or Senna paired with a decent #2 rather than each other. With Berger, Patrese, Boutsen, Warwick, Nannini, or Albo as a replacement, there'd be next to no difference in the stats, other than more wins for Senna or the Prof. imho. Using this template, be certain to add one K for Japan 89.
So you don't want teammates to fight for position you want one constantly 0.2 seconds slower a lap. Gotcha. If teammates are passing each other, the risk is there and you don't just shoot past in one turn, you may wait for 20 laps, that's dangerous territory. If one driver makes a mistake, you might lose both of your birds and 36 points.
I would have to look it up to be certain, but (from leaking memory) they didn't really crash into each other that often. They had a big war of words in the media about each other, Prost is a cry baby and also used the media to make his point, but actually driving into each other wasn't often the case. They are remembered that way because of their final crash in Japan, which gave the title to Prost. One year later with the situation reversed Ayrton dive bombed into Alain's Ferrari and got the title. Having two top drivers helps the development of the car and gets the best performance out of both. The real risk/issue with having two top drivers is that they eat each other's points (kinda like a Hillary/Obama vs McCain situation) and that a 3rd driver suddenly might snatch the title as it once happened with Prost against the Williams drivers.
Nonsense. Prost WAS replaced by Berger with a significant drop in performance. Senna still managed to win two WDCs, what did Berger do? Secondly, as we have seen with Massa and the Ferrari, simply slotting a driver into a car is no guarantee of results, no matter how good the car, if the driver is second-rate.
Seeing as they won 25 out of 32 races, that doesn't leave a whole lot for them to knock each other out of the race. in fact, there is only one incident of that happening, when Prost deliberately knocked Senna off the track. The other incident you are likely thinking of occured when Prost was in teh Ferrari.
+1 Isobel is wrong: Berger couldn't do squat with the McLaren. Same is true for Patrese in the 2nd Williams or Surer in the 2nd Brabham. They drive home an occasional victory, but the next race they do a DNF. Hmm, where have I seen that last year? Ah yess...
Well, Isobel has a point there: Senna would have problems to win the 1991 season (with a not as dominant McLaren as in previous years) if he had to share his points with Prost. And Prost and Mansell had easy and peaceful championships in 1992 and 93. I think that we can deny that having two top drivers can be quite risky. Anyway, if I was a team manager, I think that I´d give it a try. In case of civil war there is always the possibility of firing one of the drivers at the end of the season and sending him back to a mediocre team where he won´t bother the next year.
I'd have to check my old and failing memory as well, but the point sytem was completely different back then, with a driver only being able to count their, I believe 10 best races for the points. You could conceivable have a shunt and it wouldn't hurt you in the points. There were races that just plain didn't count. There were at least 2 crashes between the two that are in my faded memory banks. I need to do some reading to be sure though...
Love when Ted says 'nonsense'. I can almost predict it now, LOL. And Andreas, you're right, I might be wrong, but here's my argument regardless. Ferrari 2002 and 2004 vs. Mclaren Honda 1988 and 1989 with Senna/Prost. Would the results have been any different had Button, Jarno, JPM or Kimi been MS's teammate instead of Rubens ? I'm taking for granted you don't rate Rubino as the equal of MS OR that you believe he was the second, third or fourth best driver in F1 at the time. As per Ted's post, here's the stats : 2 x WDCs 2 x WCCs 30 wins in 35 GP races. I respect both your points of view but I believe when the car is 'on', the team can have a journeyman #2 and put out the same numbers as two divas without having to deal with the (almost) inevitable clash of egos/headaches/tantrums throughout the entire season.
You select 2002 and 2004... Nice cherry picking. It is nonsensical to claim that McLaren would have been equally successful with a journeyman driver in the second car when the two year period in question was bracketed by seasons with journeymen drivers in the car and the results were far different. Look at McLaren in 1987 and 1990, did they do as well as they did with Senna and Prost? You are inferring results from a hypothetical condition while ignoring results when that condition is actually created. Do you work for the FDA?
You can't say 2 great drivers on the same team will net results like Senna and prost in 88 and 89 in the same way you cannot claim a clear #1 and #2 will yeild you Domination of MS/RB in 02 and 04. There are wayyyy too many variables for any absolute conclusions, and in fact i think the only conclusion you can draw is: With the best car, it is often very possible to dominate the sport, regardless of driver pairings. Point being, Schumi's 2004 title could have easily been Kimi's had Mercedes produced and engine that would last more than a handful of laps, and McLaren would have manufactured a reliable chassis. Case of one of the top 2 drivers on the grid being in one of the worst cars. Hardly a "domination" by Michael due to skill.
That was not the point I am debating. There really is no clear answer to the dual #1 or #1/#2 driver pairings. I tdefinitely depends on teh drivers and the team. Teams have been successful using both approaches. The point I was debating was if McLaren would have been equally as successful in 1988/89 if they had a #1/#2 driver pairing with a lesser driver in the car in the #2 spot. I say that this is absolutely not correct.
Those seasons you are mentioning are not valid examples because Senna and Prost dominated the season but with superior equipment. If you put Senna and Prost in Ferrari in 2002 (or Schumacher in the McLaren of 1988) I think that the result would be the same. Does anybody remember a team with two dominant drivers winning without superior equipment?
I doubt any other drivers would have scored more wins than Prost and Senna managed during that time. The same amount ? Not likely, however it wouldn't have been very much less. Other than a trophy or two, I cannot see how Mclaren would have lost either a WCC or WDC during 88 or 89 having Senna or Prost alone with a decent journeyman. One last example using Berger (although any other driver swap would support my case better) from 1988 and I'll leave the topic. Take Senna/Prost and put either in Berger's car. Take Berger and put him as the replacement to either driver at Mclaren. Because he is not the peer of our illustrious duo, drop 40 points off the totals of S/P at Mclaren. Concurrently, add 40 points to Berger's total at Ferrari because S/P are superior drivers. Here's how the final standings would look with the next best team at the time; Senna/Berger Mclaren (90) + 47 Prost/Berger Mclaren (87) + 50 Senna/Alboreto Ferrari 84 + 24 Prost/ Alboreto Ferrari 84 + 24 Is an 80 point theoretical difference between Prost or Senna and Berger realistic? Not remotely imho, but it wouldn't have mattered. The Mclaren, stripped of 80 points and a #1 driver, would still have delivered the WDC and WCC regardless.
