Best 1xWDC
#51
Posted 19 November 2012 - 22:22
Advertisement
#52
Posted 19 November 2012 - 22:27
His rookie year, as great as it was, is his 4th best season by my reckoning.
Really? I might even rate it as his best. He certainly wasn´t slower in his title-year, but more error prone. 98 was still good, but nothing extra-ordinary. I also thought 2000 was pretty good, but i always had a difficult time judging his performances in the early BAR years without some question marks remaining, as Zonta was a complete waste of a F1-seat imho.
Edited by LiJu914, 19 November 2012 - 22:29.
#53
Posted 19 November 2012 - 22:38
#54
Posted 19 November 2012 - 22:39
In terms of overall career, it's a toss-up between Andretti and Surtees.
In terms of doing things with a car that defy belief, Hamilton.
I'd put all of the above ahead of a couple of multi-champs...
#55
Posted 19 November 2012 - 22:44
Andretti.
For mostly everybody else on the list, 'Formula 1 World Champion' is probably at the top of their resume. for Andretti, it's probably 6th.
Andretti? Omg, he was gifted his wdc, Ronnie Peterson was faster all year. Also there is no championship higher than F1 imo.
Nige for me because he was the fastest and could so easily have had a couple more.
#56
Posted 19 November 2012 - 22:45
In terms of F1 career alone, Mansell; with a smidge of luck he would have been a three-timer.
Yeah and without the possibly most superior car since over 30 years he would´ve stayed a zero-timer.
#57
Posted 19 November 2012 - 22:48
Both were fantastic drivers. I do think Rindt was the faster of the two, but then again, not many were faster than Jochen Rindt, so it's not something bad.
#58
Posted 19 November 2012 - 22:53
#59
Posted 19 November 2012 - 22:55
Regarding this poll. I voted Rindt; although Hamilton and Raikkonen are honorable mentions.
Advertisement
#60
Posted 19 November 2012 - 22:56
Really? I might even rate it as his best. He certainly wasn´t slower in his title-year, but more error prone. 98 was still good, but nothing extra-ordinary. I also thought 2000 was pretty good, but i always had a difficult time judging his performances in the early BAR years without some question marks remaining, as Zonta was a complete waste of a F1-seat imho.
2000 easily his most spectacular year, followed by 99 and 98. All 3 years in cars that were garbage compared to the pacesetters.
1997 clearly he made some blues but no different to Hamiltons 08...brilliant drives mixed with awesome pole laps...and a bit of bad luck, mostly forgotten.
During 98 onwards at some circuits he mixed it with McLarens and Ferraris...and that should never have been possible. Chip off the old block.
1 of 3 drivers to do F1 title/IndyCar title/Indy 500. History says he's very much relevant in this thread.
#61
Posted 19 November 2012 - 22:58
Mansell is incredibly overrated. He was beaten by Rosberg, a very underrated champion, when they were teammates at Williams in 1985. He had the best car in 1986, 1987 and 1991; he also had a very capable car in 1985 and 1990; yet was not capable of winning a championship until he was gifted an utter dominant car in 1992.
He was also beaten by de Angelis in 3 out of 4 years at Lotus and not really faster than Berger at Ferrari.
Edited by LiJu914, 19 November 2012 - 23:02.
#62
Posted 19 November 2012 - 23:01
Mansell is incredibly overrated. He was beaten by Rosberg, a very underrated champion, when they were teammates at Williams in 1985. He had the best car in 1986, 1987 and 1991; he also had a very capable car in 1985 and 1990; yet was not capable of winning a championship until he was gifted an utter dominant car in 1992.
Regarding this poll. I voted Rindt; although Hamilton and Raikkonen are honorable mentions.
Mansell couldn't even beat de Angelis at Lotus.
If anything, Mansell is the most overrated driver of the guys who won only a single WDC.
He drove like an idiot for most of his career, and cost himself at least one or two titles. He did what he should have done in 1992...when you're gifted a world-beater like the FW-14B, there is no reason you should not win the title.
#63
Posted 19 November 2012 - 23:04
He had the best car in 1986, 1987 and 1991...
Isn't that like saying Raikkonen had the best car in 2005? Those seasons are similar in the sense that by the time Williams had got their act together, Senna had won the first three races of the year.
#64
Posted 19 November 2012 - 23:05
Edited by JohnConnor, 19 November 2012 - 23:10.
#65
Posted 19 November 2012 - 23:09
#66
Posted 19 November 2012 - 23:11
2000 easily his most spectacular year, followed by 99 and 98. All 3 years in cars that were garbage compared to the pacesetters.
1997 clearly he made some blues but no different to Hamiltons 08...brilliant drives mixed with awesome pole laps...and a bit of bad luck, mostly forgotten.
During 98 onwards at some circuits he mixed it with McLarens and Ferraris...and that should never have been possible. Chip off the old block.
1 of 3 drivers to do F1 title/IndyCar title/Indy 500. History says he's very much relevant in this thread.
Regarding BAR: As i said, difficult to "read" for me, if you´re paired with a teammate who didn´t achieve anything in F1.
About 98: Dunno. As i said, i think he was good in that year. But Frentzen and the Benettons also fought occasionally with the top two teams.
#67
Posted 19 November 2012 - 23:12
#68
Posted 19 November 2012 - 23:13
Ok he won his WDC in a very dominant 92 williams but how many pilots switched to another open wheel series like indycar and won that championship as well as a rookie dispite missing a couple of races due to a nasty accident. He still remains the only driver to hold both titles simultaniously, well for a few weeks anyway.
I will say though that I haven't seen any of the drivers from mid 80s and before so my opinion is based without knowledge of the likes of Rindt and Surtees, although my F1 experence does at least stretch back further than Hammy's era.
#69
Posted 19 November 2012 - 23:14
Isn't that like saying Raikkonen had the best car in 2005? Those seasons are similar in the sense that by the time Williams had got their act together, Senna had won the first three races of the year.
In 1991 the points system was much sweeter for the driver racking up the wins. Nigel couldn't do enough with that and the best car on his side, and unfortunately, he had Senna as his main adversary. Oh, and need we discuss Mansell fumbling with his car in Canada in '91 again?
Edited by Arska, 19 November 2012 - 23:15.
#70
Posted 19 November 2012 - 23:14
Problem with comparing Mansell to Elio at Lotus is a) for the first season Mansell was a rookie whereas de Angelis had already got a podium under his belt, b) Mansell in his second season effectively missed three races after being Giacomellied (and would have won Monaco had Patrese not got a push start), and c) I am guessing people didn't actually see the 1984 season, when any bad luck that was going went Mansell's way. Perhaps not entirely coincidentally, given Lotus' egregious team manager spent most of 1983 and 1984 trying to force Mansell out.Mansell couldn't even beat de Angelis at Lotus.
If anything, Mansell is the most overrated driver of the guys who won only a single WDC.
He drove like an idiot for most of his career, and cost himself at least one or two titles. He did what he should have done in 1992...when you're gifted a world-beater like the FW-14B, there is no reason you should not win the title.
And problem with Mansell costing himself at least one or two titles means throwing out all the mechanical failures in 1986, 1987 and 1991 that contributed just as much. Although I appreciate that Mansell, uniquely in the history of Formula 1, was gifted a world-beating car. It was so absolutely dominant that his team-mate won nearly two races in it.
#71
Posted 19 November 2012 - 23:18
In 1991 the points system was much sweeter for the driver racking up the wins. Nigel couldn't do enough with that and the best car on his side, and unfortunately, he had Senna as his main adversary. Oh, and need we discuss Mansell fumbling with his car in Canada in '91 again?
How about Williams' finger work in Portugal? Or the semi-automatic 'box in Phoenix/Brazil/Belgium? That is two wins minimum lost. Mansell made that huge high-profile error as you have predictably referenced, but Williams lost Mansell many more points than vice versa. A faster car is not always the best car.
Edited by Disgrace, 19 November 2012 - 23:21.
#72
Posted 19 November 2012 - 23:24
And problem with Mansell costing himself at least one or two titles means throwing out all the mechanical failures in 1986, 1987 and 1991 that contributed just as much.
Especially 86 was always blown out of proportion as his puncture left a big impression - but over the whole season his dnf-rate wasn´t considerably higher than the ones of Piquet or Prost.
I already said once: If neither Vettel nor Webber would´ve won in 2010, they would´ve been portrayed as the biggest idiots on the planet in here (and SV had at least really much more tech-problems than his opponents). Piquet/Mansell managed to do that in 86.
People also forget regarding 87 that Piquet was injured at Imola as well, and often only mention Mansell´s Suzuka accident instead.
And we shouldn´t forget that both seasons were run under the "best of 11"-regulations.
You have a point about 91 though - but at least he had the fastest car yet again.
Although I appreciate that Mansell, uniquely in the history of Formula 1, was gifted a world-beating car. It was so absolutely dominant that his team-mate won nearly two races in it.
This pathetic try to portray the FW14 as something else as a utterly dominant rocketship raises the question, if it´s even worth discussing with you about that matter.
Edited by LiJu914, 19 November 2012 - 23:42.
#73
Posted 19 November 2012 - 23:39
#74
Posted 19 November 2012 - 23:47
#75
Posted 20 November 2012 - 08:07
Probably not if you're going to ignore the point that practically every world champ had a rocketship underneath them but, surprise surprise, the point is only picked up when there's a British driver involved.This pathetic try to portray the FW14 as something else as a utterly dominant rocketship raises the question, if it´s even worth discussing with you about that matter.
#76
Posted 20 November 2012 - 08:14
#77
Posted 20 November 2012 - 08:16
Probably not if you're going to ignore the point that practically every world champ had a rocketship underneath them but, surprise surprise, the point is only picked up when there's a British driver involved.
no....fw14 was THE rocketship.
#78
Posted 20 November 2012 - 08:22
#79
Posted 20 November 2012 - 08:30
Andretti? Omg, he was gifted his wdc, Ronnie Peterson was faster all year. Also there is no championship higher than F1 imo.
Was expecting someone to chime in with this all too ubiquitous (and disgusting) a-historical, dilettante take on the 1978 season...
In fact, Mario's championship has to surely be one of the more 'deserved' Championships as far as a driver's having a direct hand in helping transform a team back into World Championship form.
Advertisement
#80
Posted 20 November 2012 - 09:23
"Practically". In 1982 nobody had a rocketship, Ferrari was probably the closest, but Pironi screwed all that up for them.Keke didn't have a rocketship underneath him.
And it's a complete, total and utter fabrication that Ronnie was faster than Mario in 1978. Look it up.
#81
Posted 20 November 2012 - 09:57
2. Mansell
3. Hamilton
#82
Posted 20 November 2012 - 11:03
Probably not if you're going to ignore the point that practically every world champ had a rocketship underneath them but, surprise surprise, the point is only picked up when there's a British driver involved.
You know, Mansell also drove some rocketships before 92 and still didn´t win a WDC. So there might be a difference between "rocketships" and "rocketships".
btw. It´s more likley that, you picked it up and went into denial, because there´s a british driver involved- not the other way around. But to circumvent that, let´s ignore Mansell and just focus on Patrese´s performances in that Williams car.
As you might know, Riccardo became teammate of MSC the following year. That year he lost all of the season´s sixteen qualifyings against Schumacher - and in addition to that...only 3 out these 16 times Patrese was able to stay within a few tenth of Schumacher´s time - apart from these occasions he was always a second or more behind. He collected just 27% of the points for the team´s total WCC-score. He finished zero times ahead of Schumacher, when both could finish the race - in fact: Every time that happened, Patrese was either more than a full minute behind MSC or even lapped by him. In short: He was completely crushed - even more than the year before by Mansell at Williams.
Now here are his results compared to MSC in 1992 (who became 3rd behind both Williams drivers in the WDC), when both didn´t drive the same car:
Patrese outqualified Schumacher with his Williams 14:2(!)...11 out of these 14 times he was a second or more faster than MSC.
When both finished the race, Patrese was ahead of Schumacher 5 out of 7 times. The other two races were the wet Spa-Grand Prix and the Italian GP, in which Patrese´s car suffered a hydraulic problem and couldn´t run with full speed til the end anymore (he was leading the race before that).
So let´s register that: In the FW14 Patrese was able to easily and consistently outpace a guy, who completely dominated him in the very next season, when Patrese had to face him in the same car. In fact the Williams was so good, that Patrese could turn his huge and immediatly afterwards exploited lack of performance compared to MSC into the complete opposite the year before.
And to compare Patrese with the whole field in 92:
He qualified ahead of every non-Williams driver 11 out of 16 times (68%).
In his race-finishes he was ahead of every non-Williams driver 7 out 10 times (70%) – and the Monza GP (s. above) is included in that.
To give this some perspective, we could compare this with the last example of a alleged rocketship. This would be the RB 7 from last year, when everybody moaned about its dominance.
Patrese´s "counterpart" Mark Webber qualified ahead of every non-Red Bull driver 8 out of 19 times (42%).
In his race-finishes Webber was ahead of every non-Red Bull driver just 3 out of 18 times (16,5%)!!
It´s unlikely that these significant differences are a result of Webber driving much poorer than Patrese in comparison, as Patrese´s performances immediately after 92 don´t indicate that at all - and also because Patrese could even afford to be comparatively further away from Mansell (than Webber was from Vettel) and still be much more often ahead of the opposition.
Well if the RB7 was a dominant car and far ahead of its competitors (and most people agreed with that last year), then the FW14 was not even in the same galaxy as its competitors.
Edited by LiJu914, 20 November 2012 - 12:21.
#83
Posted 20 November 2012 - 12:19
I'm truly staggered to see that 'Big John' only had 1 vote. my god..
as for the people (kiddies?) who have voted Hamilton, well I shake my head in disgust, he is a very good driver indeed but some people either are totally blinkered or have no idea of the history of F1.
#84
Posted 20 November 2012 - 12:22
#85
Posted 20 November 2012 - 12:33
However, going from when I started to reasonably understand/appreciate F1 when I was 8 or 9 (not just seeing it as cars going neeeeooooowww around a rack), then I have to say Mansell. He gave a great deal of pleasure to so many fans and deserved to be a 3xWDC. A **** of the highest order - but a proper racing driver.
#86
Posted 20 November 2012 - 12:37
I have to say Mansell. He gave a great deal of pleasure to so many fans and deserved to be a 3xWDC. A **** of the highest order - but a proper racing driver.
Can't really disagree with that ;)
#87
Posted 20 November 2012 - 12:45
#88
Posted 20 November 2012 - 12:46
#89
Posted 20 November 2012 - 12:58
For me, having watched F1 since 1970 its Jochen Rindt.
I'm truly staggered to see that 'Big John' only had 1 vote. my god..
as for the people (kiddies?) who have voted Hamilton, well I shake my head in disgust, he is a very good driver indeed but some people either are totally blinkered or have no idea of the history of F1.
Don't be so disparaging! Only Mansell was higher in the BBC's list, so it 'aint that much of an outrageous opinion.
#90
Posted 20 November 2012 - 13:12
#91
Posted 20 November 2012 - 13:30
I'm surprised Surtees only has one vote. Didn't Stirling Moss say he was as talented as Jim Clark?
#92
Posted 20 November 2012 - 13:40
Strong field. Indeed, if everyone voted as you had, Surtees would have had none.For me, having watched F1 since 1970 its Jochen Rindt.
I'm truly staggered to see that 'Big John' only had 1 vote. my god..
#93
Posted 20 November 2012 - 13:45
#94
Posted 20 November 2012 - 14:42
#95
Posted 20 November 2012 - 15:24
#96
Posted 20 November 2012 - 15:38
Has to be Hamilton he has beat a 2XWDC once, and 1XWDC - twice. That's like a 5XWDC right there. Which other one time champions has done that?
And Nico Rosberg got 14-21xWDC right there...
But as you asked: Jochen Rindt scored more points than his teammates Surtees (1xWDC), Brabham (2xWDC) and Hill (2xWDC) in his years together with each of them
Edited by LiJu914, 20 November 2012 - 15:44.
#97
Posted 20 November 2012 - 15:41
#98
Posted 20 November 2012 - 15:49
And Nico Rosberg got 14-21xWDC right there...
But as you asked: Jochen Rindt scored more points than his teammates Surtees (1xWDC), Brabham (2xWDC) and Hill (2xWDC) in his years together with each of them
Rookie year is a tripple score bonus so make that 2 x 3 WDC + 2 x 1 WDC = 8, then+ 1 =9 times WDC.
Yeah!
Edited by whitevisor, 20 November 2012 - 15:50.
Advertisement
#100
Posted 20 November 2012 - 16:12