Lauda - how good was he?
#1
Posted 06 September 2005 - 02:28
Much was made at the time of his veteran status, and that he had come back into championship contention after a couple of years away, and I became a fan, particularly given his dramatic and triumphant comeback post-Nurburgring 1976. The most information I've ever found on him in one spot was To Hell and Back which I cherished until someone flogged it out of my collection recently.
While his name often crops up in here, I don't believe that I've seen a definitive thread on how Lauda rates in the estimation of you good folk who were there to see him first-hand through his halcyon days.
So... how good was Niki? What can you tell a fan who never knew him at his best?
Advertisement
#2
Posted 06 September 2005 - 06:34
#3
Posted 06 September 2005 - 10:27
....NL.. " I once saw one thing that annoyed me : I was leading Regazzoni, my pit showed me +30; but I could also see the other board that they were going to show Regazzoni and that one read -20. I was annoyed, because I want to be able to rely one hundered per cent on what my pit tells me.
#4
Posted 06 September 2005 - 10:57
A reflection of the perception of the opposition? E.g. in 1977 beating Reutemann, a 4 year old McLaren and a conking Lotus was not unduly difficult. Many of the mid 70s guys - Hunt, Andretti, Pace et al - are not seen as of the highest ranking in F1 terms.Originally posted by Fiorentina 1
On his day, there was NO ONE better! The fact that he is sometimes not rated as 1 of the 10 best ever suprises me greatly.
Plus Lauda was OWNED by Peterson at March, Prost at McLaren and shown up by John Watson in the same team as well as showing very little in the lower formulae (British Formula 2 Champion was a bit like being the Netherlands' Best Mountaineer at the time).
Of course there are loads of arguments against all of the above but I am guessing that's why he has never made the sort of top grade.
#5
Posted 06 September 2005 - 11:14
As a racing driver, you can't argue with the stats, but I felt that some of his results were gained through consistency, and sometimes the misfortunes/ uncompetitiveness of the opposition. 1977 being the prime example of this - Lauda and the Ferrari were by no means the quickest combination of car and driver, he gained the championship because the fastest opposition was so inconsistent.
As a man, I have a lot of respect for him. Who wouldn't - coming back from a truly life-threatening accident to race again within a matter of weeks was an incredible feat by any standards. And pulling out of the rain sodden Japanese GP later in that year took courage of a different kind. Some called it cowardice. I called it balls. No-one HAS to race. If someone finds the risks unacceptable in a certain situation, then withdraw your labour by all means.
Perhaps the only sour note in Niki's career was when he failed to make much of an impact as head honcho of the Jaguar F1 team, but as that job seemed to be a particularly poisoned chalice, it's probably not fair to point the finger at him in that respect.
#6
Posted 06 September 2005 - 12:25
It was only after 1976 that Lauda became much more calculated.
Either way, I think Lauda was one of the top champions, whatever you may think of him as a person. I can only have respect for someone who has achieved what he has, both in F1 and outside.
He also played a key role in turning around Ferrari in 1974, played a major role in the development of the TAG-Porsche engine for McLaren and has proven to be a winner from 1975-1985 - a time when F1 developed a huge amount, with aerodynamics, 'ground effect' and turbo engines.
The Jaguar F1 episode was a sorry one, but shouldn't deflect from all his other achievements.
#7
Posted 06 September 2005 - 12:30
He was a much more rounded character than all of his contemporaries, and achieved more than most of them away from the track, viz sorting Ferrari out, and setting up the airline.
Definitely a great champion in my view.
#8
Posted 06 September 2005 - 12:54
But much like Roebuck wouldn't argue that Behra was an all time great, I won't argue that Lauda is in the top ten ever. Yes, he's knocking on that door, but I could also name many others I would place higher.
Let's see. (IN NO PARTICULAR ORDER!) :
Stewart
Prost
Schumacher M
Clark
Fangio
Ascari
Senna
And now it gets tricky. Because in order to be considered a better driver you have to have won at least one World championship and proven yourself over more than a few seasons. So Gilles is out on that count. Amon too. (to name two drivers with lage followings around here). Moss should be out too on that count but no effing way can he be left out. I'm not THAT stupid. So that's him in too..
Moss
Multiple champions not mentioned yet are: Andretti (not multiple but it's my list so he gets in honorarily), G. Hill, Brabham, Piquet Fittipaldi and Häkkinen. Well, in fact I don't think either of these showed more (or rather, better) in an F1 car than Lauda. Andretti and Hill did loads of stuff outside F1 but is that within the scope of the original question? If not, they are out. If it is, I'd include them both. You can't argue with Marios longevity and you can't argue with Hill's triple crown...
Andretti
Hill G
So there you are. Lauda is No. 11.
#9
Posted 06 September 2005 - 12:57
Some of you mentioned the comeback after his fiery accident. I have just seen the 1976 Italian Grand Prix from DVD and was surprised to learn that Lauda came close to winning that race just to fall back a couple of laps from the finish. I haven't looked into Mike Lang's Grand Prix or any contemporary sources to track down the reason, but it would have been a wonderful comeback if he had done that! His fourth place was no mean achievement nevertheless.
#10
Posted 06 September 2005 - 13:53
In the seventies he might not have the fierciest of opponents. He did beat Prost in equal material (albeit just) in 1984. He always knew what he was doing and rarely misjudged opponents. He once said never to do more than is necessary to win a race (look at his last GP win at Zandvoort 1985).
Ferrari may have lost many wins with his departure (due to those internal politics at Maranello that lighted up again after Montezemolo had left). Especially as you look at his results in 1978 with the unreliable Alfa engined Brabham. Lets say that the Schumacher effect (I hear sighs) might have occured between 1975 and 1979.
He was disliked as he showed emotionless on many occassions with cold but analytic remarks. He introduced the 'new' racing driver.
Funny is that when you meet or see him these days, he seems to have defrosted and is a warm personality.
#11
Posted 06 September 2005 - 14:24
I think it's the "artists" who people tend to get more dewy-eyed about - Fangio, Clark, Rosberg, Senna, Mansell (always willing to improvise), Hakkinen (supreme qualifying artist) and the unlucky ones who never won a title - Gilles, Ronnie, Chris, Alesi, and Sir Stirling....
#12
Posted 06 September 2005 - 14:25
However ultimate performance is more determined by the comphrehensive package than by sheer abilty. An extreme example would be D Hill at Williams.
To me, Lauda's considerable success fits into the latter category and his emergance at Ferrari really tells the story. When he and Regazoni were signed for the '74 season, Regzoni was regarded as the #1 driver and Lauda, the #2. However Lauda was astute enough to realize 2 things: 1) that due to the chaos of the '73 season Forgheri and the racing dept were able to focus on F-1; 2) haveing a test track at your back door and haveing a comparatively low cost of testing was an inherant advantage.
Thanks to Luca Montezmolo (sp) clearing the political path, Lauda and Forgheri were left alone to refine the basic design of the late '73 312B3. Through countless hours of testing, L&F were able to test just about every variation at hand to determine the best overall package. The B3 was competative from the beginning of the season and if only for some late season reliability would have achieved the Driver's and Constructor's titles for Ferrari. Lauda's analytical and organizational abilty as much as his prowess behind the wheel were the reasons for Ferrari's dominance in the late 70's.
Maybe a more naturally "gifted" driver would not have had to work as hard as Lauda to refine the car- we'll never know. What we can be sure of is that Lauda's non racing work made the team's successfull race performances possible.
Maybe that is a different defination of "great" but not one that makes the Top-10 lists ?
Best,
Ross
#13
Posted 06 September 2005 - 19:01
I think that sums it up perfectly...
#14
Posted 07 September 2005 - 04:17
#15
Posted 07 September 2005 - 04:19
#16
Posted 07 September 2005 - 06:10
1. Brought back Ferrari from nowhere in the early 1970's with limited experience. Standing up against Enzo and the political factions at barely age 24 needs to be recognized.
2. Winning winning 2 championships with Ferrari, especially the 2nd one, where he was able to stage a comeback nobody thought was possible.
3. Proving that he had the speed when needed, to get the points.
4. Capable of coming back from retirement and winning another championship against a young upcomming superstar named Alain Prost.
5. Winning 3 championships with 2 teams that did not produce a championship winning car when he joined them.
Not many WDC's have a more impressive CV than Lauda. IMO he was mentaly the strongest driver ever to win a WDC title.
My top 10
Senna
Schumacher
Clark
Fangio
Prost
Ascari
Lauda
Rindt
Villeneuve G.
Bellof
#17
Posted 07 September 2005 - 06:12
Originally posted by Fiorentina 1
On his day, there was NO ONE better! The fact that he is sometimes not rated as 1 of the 10 best ever suprises me greatly. 3 time World Champion, 25 GP wins should stand for something. But, really he should be right up there with Schumacher for turning an Italian fiasco like Ferrari into a World Championship team. Niki Lauda is one of the best ever! Fangio, Clark, Stewart, Senna and Nuvolari were better imo, but Lauda is right there with Moss, Prost, Schumacher, & Surtees.
Ahem! SCM was emphatically not in any considered second group!
#18
Posted 07 September 2005 - 08:05
#19
Posted 07 September 2005 - 08:15
Originally posted by Vicuna
I agree but I suspect if we all start nominating top 10s, this will go nowhere fast.
Agred, we might as well start discussing which driver had the best hairstyle.
Advertisement
#20
Posted 07 September 2005 - 08:29
#21
Posted 07 September 2005 - 08:38
Originally posted by ian senior
Agred, we might as well start discussing which driver had the best hairstyle.
Now that's easy - Arturo Merzario!!
#22
Posted 07 September 2005 - 09:13
#23
Posted 07 September 2005 - 09:55
He had already shown his talent in 1973, when he clocked the fifth fastest time in practice with 7'09.9, which was only 2.1 sec slower then Stewart on pole. His team mates, Regazzoni and Beltoise only did 7'18.2 and 7'18.1 respectively. Unfortunately Niki retired on the second lap when running fourth.Originally posted by Ralliart
Speed? It's little known but, in May 1974, Lauda conquered the seven minute barrier for the first time, in provate(?) testing at the Nurburgring, setting a time of 6:58.2. I believe I read that in Autosport but I have that figure written down. Regga wasn't far behind. Then, at qualifying for the 1975 German GP, Lauda set pole with the 6:58.6.
#24
Posted 07 September 2005 - 11:30
Niki wouldn't be in the hunt on that one...Originally posted by ian senior
Agred, we might as well start discussing which driver had the best hairstyle.
I found it interesting in "to Hell and Back" where he talked about the sub-seven minute lap at the Nurburgring - and how he was in a rare mood and "permitted" himself to go for it... it, as much as anything else in the book, underlined for me how significant a part was played by his mental application.
Must agree that he'll never be spoken of with the same reverence extended to Ronnie Peterson or Gilles Villeneuve, but for mine he was among the toughest.
#25
Posted 07 September 2005 - 12:14
Talking about top ten, Lauda was #1 on the Autocourse Top Ten list each year between 1975 and '78. I can understand perfectly why he did finish on top in 1975, '76 & '77, but what's the reason for '78?Originally posted by AndreasF1
Lauda was definetely among the best and deserves a spot in the top 10.
#26
Posted 07 September 2005 - 12:48
The Alfa engine sucked. Even when it won it sucked.Originally posted by Geza Sury
I can understand perfectly why he did finish on top in 1975, '76 & '77, but what's the reason for '78?
#27
Posted 10 September 2005 - 03:55
He was smart enough to see the big picture, like many of the greats, such as Fangio and a tough swine to boot.
#28
Posted 10 September 2005 - 08:08
The driver- huge speed, smooth , calculating ,aware, and massively determined.Fairly good at the bravery thing...
I remember Brands GP 82 practice and listening to his gearchanging- -perfection - and made most of his peers sound like truck drivers straining to find 9th gear up a long incline .
The driver who whilst not the best (lists- who needs em?) is the one who I respect the most.
#29
Posted 07 March 2007 - 13:36
Originally posted by john aston
Lauda the man- very very smart, wicked humour and refreshingly aware of life outside the sport.
The driver- huge speed, smooth , calculating ,aware, and massively determined.Fairly good at the bravery thing...
I remember Brands GP 82 practice and listening to his gearchanging- -perfection - and made most of his peers sound like truck drivers straining to find 9th gear up a long incline .
The driver who whilst not the best (lists- who needs em?) is the one who I respect the most.
^^^Very nicely put. Ironically it was in a BRM at Brands ROC 1973 when I started to really be a major fan of Lauda. He was on the front row and set fastest lap before retiring in the last half of the race with something silly, I cant remember what exactly. What I do remember is it was his gearchanges that impressed me ...so fast, audibly fater than anyone I had ever heard.
As for his abilities, Ronnie may have been quicker at March, but Ronnies strengh was his ability to drive round a problem. Nikis strengh was to identify the problem and make the car quicker. Technically I cant think of many in his class. It was his talent that combined with Mauros design skills to turn Ferrari from the also rans into a dominant force in the 70's. It was he who had the courage to go direct to Enzo at a time when team policy was for him to tell the race engineer what he felt and then that message was relayed through a hierarchy until someone at the top would tell Enzo a story he wanted to hear. It was Niki that went straight to the Man with a translator who when Niko told him what to say said 'You cant say that to Enzo'. Niki told Enzo directly the car was ****, and what was needed to fix it. He got his way anf the team was transformed to their former excellence
I rate what he did with Mauro every bit as good (better actually) as what MS achieved with an expensive imported collection known as the Superteam in the late 90's.
As for Niki's comeback in '76 I can this of no sporting comeback in any sport that would equate in brevity, stengh of character and committment to that drive at Monza. Going back to his technical skills it was Niki's guidance that made Prost 'the Professor' I believe.
I loved his humour, a superb wit. I loved his no bullshit approach to life.... talk about call a spade a spade. I loved the way he walked out on Ferrari the moment he had won his 2nd WDC after the way they had treated him after his comeback from the fire. Equally it was no surprise to me to hear he had retired after practice in Canada after trying the V8 Brabham he was to have driven the following year, and simply said he was bored with driving in circles (especially with the relatively pissy V8 sound behind him after a career based on 12 cylinders)
When he set up his airline and it had the fateful crash shortly after take off in Thailand it was Niki who sifted through wreckage and at a time when everyone was pointing at pilot error or a service problem it was Niki who came up with the real fault, after testing his theories on a 767 flight simulator.a Boeing 767 design fault that allowed the thrust reverser on the left engine to activate during the climb. With typical directness he released a statement that he knew what had caused the crashCrash investigators later supported and confirmed Nikis claim.
The one thing that makes me smile is that I can think of no other person alive who successfully outnegotiated both Bernie and Ron Dennis. Whatever people may think of him Niki Lauda was truly a unique champion
#30
Posted 08 March 2007 - 09:09
Whatever people may think of him Niki Lauda was truly a unique champion [/B]
YES !
#31
Posted 08 March 2007 - 09:48
Originally posted by Piston Broke
.... I loved his no bullshit approach to life.... talk about call a spade a spade. ...
^ reminded me of one of his guest appearances on RTL when after a race (don't remember which) the host asked how he found this exciting race.
The answer (as I remember it in my broken German) : "Ich hab' fast in den hosen gemacht". (tr: I almost soiled my pants). Not eloquent or witty, but funny because it described the race and is something I would never have dreamt of hearing on a German channel.
#32
Posted 08 March 2007 - 14:43
#33
Posted 08 March 2007 - 14:57
Fangio
Ascari
Schumacker
Clark
Senna
Prost
Moss
Farina
Villeneuve
Stewart
D.Hill
Mansell
#34
Posted 08 March 2007 - 16:10
______________________________________________________________________________
I tried to make statistics comparison between drivers of different decades, to see which ones were the fastest of all times, and ended with this:
Place_Driver_Number of Poles/GP
1_FANGIO Juan Manuel_56.86
2_CLARK Jim _ 45.83
3_ASCARI Alberto_ 43.75
4_SENNA Ayrton _ 40.37
5_SCHUMACHER Michael_ 27.31
6_MOSS Stirling _ 24.24
7_HILL Damon _ 17.39
8_ ALONSO Fernando _ 17.24
9_STEWART Jackie _ 17.17
10_MANSELL Nigel _ 17.11
11_RINDT Jochen _ 16.67
12_PROST Alain _ 16.58
13_ HAKKINEN Mika _ 16.15
14_ HUNT James _ 15.22
15_ FARINA Giuseppe_ 15.15
16_ ANDRETTI Mario _ 14.06
17_ LAUDA Niki _ 14.04
18_ MONTOYA Juan Pablo _ 13.83
19_ HILL Phil _ 12.77
20_ JABOUILLE Jean Pierre_ 12.24
21_ ARNOUX René _ 12.08
22_ PIQUET Nelson_ 11.76
23_ ICKX Jacky _ 11.40
24_ PETERSON Ronnie _ 11.38
25 _ RAIKKONEN Kimi _ 10.58
26 _ BRABHAM Jack _ 10.57
The work ended in Jack Brabham because all the others are bellow 10%.
I have my opinion, I see 4 classes of drivers:
1- those who made poles on approximately half of their attempts.
2- those who made poles on approximately a quarter of their attempts.
3- those who made poles between 20% and 10% of their attempts.
4- other drivers, many fast, but not so fast as the previous 26...
_______________________________________________________________________________
It's curious, most people ranks Graham Hill higher than his son, but reality it's inverse, Damon was faster than his father and most of the famous....
#35
Posted 08 March 2007 - 16:55
It is no longer a matter of the fastest possible laps due to
1) Strategy which impacts in the way of fuel loads carried during qualifying can be so varied as to make a real difference.
2) The silly years where a mechanical DNF in one race impacted severely the qualifying performance in the following race because of the requirement of being first out on a dirty and much slower track. This would be further compounded by the usual strategy in those situations of fuelling up to run longer, more or less accepting that the chance of a good qualifying time was impossible due to the early run. Slow track plus extra weight does not make qualifying an even playing field.
3) The even sillier rule of an engine change in practice meaning a 10 place penalty on the grid. This prior knowledge would again often entail a strategy based on starting midfield at best and the same implications as point 2.
This is particulary relevant to Raikkonen who on occassions even with the disadvantage of extra fuel still often recorded the best time in qualifying but ended up starting 11th, losing not only the kudos of pole position, but that pole position in turn going to the second fastest qualifier. The fact that Montoya shows as being a quicker (better?) driver than Raikkonen proves this flaw, as clearly he was not a faster driver than Raikkonen. In terms of race fastest laps a comparison of JPM and KR shows something in the region of JPM achieving a faster lap only 3 times out of the 30 or so races they were teamates. Surely a more consistent result for the purposes of your survey / judgement would be obtained from fastest race laps rather than pole position.
Oh for qualifying to revert to what it was intended.... to see the ultimate pace of car and driver with low fuel loads in optimum trim. Im not advocating the use of qualifying tyres or engines, just that qualifying should not be affected by a race related strategy decision. The system we currently have means that it isnt possible to judge a qualifying performance or teamate qualifying comparison fully until seeing what level of fuel was on board.... ie when the car / driver makes his first fuel stop.
Just an observation ...... :
#36
Posted 08 March 2007 - 17:17
The object of a race is to win so the obvious measure is wins and permutations thereon.
Ultimately you may come up with a formula that considers all of the following: wins, championships, championship placings, poles, fastest laps, number of races in a season, head to head performances against team mates, number of races, number of seasons, etc etc.
The funny thing is that the same names will make up the top of any list, albeit in a slightly different order, no matter what method you use to evaluate the statistics. Cream always rises to the top.
But to return to the main question: "Lauda - how good was he?"
Better than Ottoro Volontorio, not as good as Fangio.
Good enough to be considered 'the man to beat' by his peers
Good enough to win three championships
Good enough to win however many GPs he won
Good enough to come back from retirement and still win
Good enough to survive in an era when many did not
Good enough to win negotiations with messrs Ecclestone, Dennis and Ferrari
Good enough to be maimed for life and be able to joke about it
Good enough to turn Ferrari into a winning team
Good enough to be respected as a man as well as a driver
in summary
Good enough to qualify for anybody's Grand Prix hall of fame
#37
Posted 08 March 2007 - 17:30
I would like to see your statistical study. I have done the same and normalized the data using q scores. My results are as follows:
Overall Qscore
Fangio 2.931
Ascari 2.205
Schumacker 1.911
Clark 1.819
Senna 1.105
Prost 0.995
Moss 0.809
Farina 0.751
Villeneuve 0.750
Stewart 0.723
D.Hill 0.687
Mansell 0.196
Lauda 0.064
Hawthorne -0.002
Piquet -0.142
P. Hill -0.202
Hunt -0.284
Brooks -0.303
Brabham -0.324
Rindt -0.419
Hakkinen -0.425
Ickx -0.448
Jones -0.491
Scheckter -0.479
Hulme -0.479
Reutermann -0.498
Petersen -0.522
Andretti -0.583
Berger -0.567
Fittipaldi -0.576
G. Villeneuve -0.585
Surtees -0.588
G.Hill -0.636
Regazzoni -0.650
Arnoux -0.728
Lafitte -0.908
Rosberg -0.927
Patrese -0.995
Watson -1.057
This takes into account wins, poles, podiums, fastest laps, and points scored all per starts.
#38
Posted 08 March 2007 - 17:35
Originally posted by D-Type
....
#39
Posted 08 March 2007 - 17:43
on the last table on the line: I have to note each time that a pilot at summer to quote in the classification: 1 pole, 1 best lap, 1 classification in the points, 1 victory, each time that it has to roll at the head, and 1 world title I board makes the total, and I have to divide it by the number of disputed GP.
scuse my Inglish
sur le dernier tableau sur la droite:
j'ai noter chaque fois qu'un pilote à été citer dans le classement. c'est à dire: 1 pole, 1 meilleur tour, 1 classement dans les points, 1 victoire, chaque fois qu'il a rouler en tête, et 1 titre mondial. j'ais fait le total, et je l'ai diviser par le nombre de GP disputés.
Advertisement
#40
Posted 08 March 2007 - 17:47
You have a points total in that sheet. Is that included giving Fangio ten for his 1st places as MSchumacher has gotten. I.e. a corected figure for the differences in points given through time?
Have you deducted the '97 points from Schumachers total?
#41
Posted 08 March 2007 - 17:58
Fangio 60.6%
Ascari 50.2%
Schumacker 58.0%
Clark 47.6%
Senna 41.5%
Prost 43.6%
Moss 35.3%
Farina 48.2%
Stewart 40.4%
D.Hill 35.0%
Mansell 28.0%
Lauda 27.3%
Ie Fangio scored 60.6% of all the points he could have possible scored vs. Lauda who just scored 27.&5 of the total points available to him.
#42
Posted 08 March 2007 - 18:02
Piston Broke has a good point, but I suspect this won't change results significantly .
D-Type, you have a good point too, I agree with you when you say -"The funny thing is that cream always floats on top and the same names will make up the top of any list, albeit in a slightly different order, no matter what method you use to evaluate the statistics."
Tmeranda, I simply divided the total number of poles by the total number of GP's, as I said, to find the faster racers is not the same as to find the best racers. Your method led to the best racers in all aspects, not the fasters, which I was trying to do.
#43
Posted 08 March 2007 - 18:12
Based just on poles my statistics and your are very close. However I think you left out Villeneuve
#44
Posted 08 March 2007 - 18:18
I made that 2 or 3 months ago, if I remember well, both Villeneuves were below 10% and I discarded their results... was I wrong?
#45
Posted 08 March 2007 - 18:28
#46
Posted 08 March 2007 - 18:31
My post:
Originally posted by jcbc3
IMHO, Villeneuve is waaaaaaaaaay too high on that list.
For fun I compared Scheckter and GV in 1979. GV outqualified JS 8-7. I then calculated their average gridposition which turned out to be 6.07 for JS and 5.07 for GV.
That surprised me, but I then noticed that if we leave out the last two GP's of the year (Canada and USA) which were held after Scheckter had clinched the championship (he qualified 9 and 16 as opposed to GV's 2 and 3) it turned out that until then Scheckters average gridposition was 5.08 and GV's 5.46.
Now, what is the distinguishing feature of GV's carreer was his unstinting commitment during the years his Ferraris were less than good. 1980 and 1981. However his team mates were in those years a disillusioned Jody Scheckter and a less than stellar Didier Pironi.
In 1978 when he was a rookie he was up against Reutemann who also knew how to pedal a car in qualifying. And GV was annihilated. 13-2 and 4.8 and 7.88 in average starting position.
Sorry, but in my book the evidence of GV being the second best one-lap driver just isn't there. He may have been spectacular. But that aint the same as being fast.
I stand by every word.
#47
Posted 08 March 2007 - 18:46
#48
Posted 08 March 2007 - 19:02
#49
Posted 08 March 2007 - 19:23
#50
Posted 08 March 2007 - 20:30
Originally posted by ensign14
The Alfa engine sucked. Even when it won it sucked.
That, sir, is a first-rate pun. I take my hat off to you.
Also, um, Niki Lauda. His comeback was undoubtedly one of the bravest, most astonishing achievements in all of sport, and his race performances in 1984 from midfield were often fantastic. I always saw 1985 as primarily a reliability struggle, but I just watched his Zandvoort victory from that year: excellent, tenacious defending of his position with tyres that were basically shot.