we had a spirited discussion as to whether indeed 2010 is the best driver generation since 1967/1968, or whether the end of 80s/beginning of 90s is not unfairly discarded or whether you cannot compare different eras.
While I tend towards the last (different eras cannot be compared) I do not believe that 1991 was in any way worse than either the end of the 60s nor the 2010 generation.
If I were to compare 1991 rates at least statistically as the most impressive field of the sport:
You had with Prost, Senna, Mansell, Piquet, Schumacher and Hakkinen six different (past, present and future) world champions on the grid, taking 20 WDCs (!) and 267 GP wins (!!!), and that is not counting other GP winners like Berger and Patrese. Mighty in statistical comparison to 1967/1968, but then you did not have as many GPs per season back then.
We do not know how the 2010 generation will finally pan out statistically - it might be that they - having so far in total 11 WDCs on the grid - might transcend the 20 WDCs of 1991, it might be that they will gain 300+ GP wins, it might be that they will stay slightly behind the 1991 crop.
Please simply answer if 2010/1991/1968 and the question of comparing eras is one of the above options for you and explain why.
Edited by aditya-now, 01 November 2010 - 12:49.