307 replies to this topic

[Huw Jenjin]

Jones, Mansell, Hawthorne, Irvine.
The common thread here being that they all rated themselves pretty highly.

[Ray Bell]

Was Jones so conceited? Jenks always gave him top points for his determination and ability.

------------------
Life and love are mixed with pain...

[Keir]

Carlos Reutemann.

I could go, on and on, but that would add to the over-rating.

------------------
"I Was Born Ready"

[Don Capps]

Hawthorn? Mike could be real bastard, but he seemed to know his limits and stayed within the frame whereas Moss & Fangio were usually right at the edge of the enevelope but you never really knew it that often. Overrated? Remember, he was one of the few native English-speakers in his era with a ghost of a chance of success so was dogged by the racing press. They didn't seem to comprehend that he had a Life outside racing...

Jones, I think, put things into perspective and decided it was better being a retired Champion than a dead legend. However, he was the sort who would tell you he was going to do something and then do it. Overrated? Not to me. I thought he was just blunt and said whatever came to his mind when a press cretin asked a question that was dumb. Needless to say, this was not accepted as intended in most cases.

To me, the seriously overrated drivers start with Mansell and Senna, both of who were obviously very good, but praised beyond their real abilities. However, these two have plenty of company...

------------------
Yr fthfl & hmbl srvnt,

Don Capps

Semper Gumbi: If this was easy, we’d have the solution already…

[Joe Fan]

I prefer to use the word "overhyped", not overrated as I don't think any driver really is overrated when they are out there in competing and using skills to drive high speed machinery in an obviously dangerous sport.

I think Mike Hawthorn was a better driver than most people give credit for. He was the first driver to officially break the 4 minute mark at Le Mans.

Alan Jones brought the first WDC and CC to Williams so I my mind he did something that most drivers didn't do. Can't that be respected when other drivers stepped into proven rides?

Mansell deserves credit for winning a championship on both sides of the Atlantic.

Irvine, well I think he is a very good driver that came close to winning a WDC for Ferrari, so I think he deserves some credit but I wouldn't rank him in the elite category yet.

[green-blood]

3 world champions and Irvine. Irvine has never been overrated, he spent 4 years at Ferari being told he was no good - given his head he won 4 races...overhyped certainly, but in a world where we criticise the F1 world for having no characters he has to be a highlight.

Today - Diniz, 6 years now and a couple of points finishes?? Barichello - he is still trading on that one wet weather performance in '93 at Donington.

This is going to upset Keir especially but Amon - if he was that good why did he never win, he had the equipment, it cant always be luck. And as for other drivers to do well outside of F1 and be considered legends, Derek Bell and Jacky I - There is a ferrari link here somewhere.

[Joe Fan]

Green Blood, Amon was a very unlucky driver in F1. A driver cannot be overrated if he never won because everyone usually overlooks these type drivers. He did finish 2nd three times. One thing to Amon's credit is that he and McLaren brought the first win at Le Mans for Ford in a Ford GT40 MkII. He also was a Tasman Cup champion in 1969, won the Daytona 24HRS and Monza in 1967 in a sports car.

[This message has been edited by Joe Fan (edited 05-31-2000).]

[Dave Ware]

I believe that Amon was regarded to be as good as Stewart and Rindt, in those days.

After finishing the grocery shopping on Sunday I checked out the last few laps of the IRL 500. I was reminded that a certain Eddie Cheever drove in F1 for a long time. I don't remember if he was overhyped, but how did he manage to get hired for so many years while producing such abysmial results?

Dave

[green-blood]

I'll tell ya the truth I was sneakily trying to start a debate here. I am very much a fan of Amon as a driver I like the way he went about his business and his performances in Sportscars, Le Mans etc prove how capable he was, his statistics in F1 show he was as fast as the best but just never finished in 1st place, this is however an F1 board and in F1 Amon regularly gets put in the top 10 best of all time - look at the pantheon, but he never won and I reckon that makes him over rated.

[Keir]

Green-blood,
Now, that's a first!!!

Amon over-rated!!!

We do have an Amon thread here and as I have said, "Tales of Amon" are always welcome.

I could have gone into defense mode and spent some time going over Chris's career, chapter and verse, but take some time and read the "Favorite Amon" thread and you will discover that Chris was definitly under-
rated.

------------------
"I Was Born Ready"

[This message has been edited by Keir (edited 05-31-2000).]

[Ray Bell]

There's always plenty ready to have a dig at Irish Eddie (just look at the RC forum) - but for all that's said against him, he does have some runs on the board. Definitely not over-rated.

------------------
Life and love are mixed with pain...

[green-blood]

I have read every single item on the Amon board - and enjoyed them. But he never won and on the pantheon he is one of the top ten of ALL TIME in Formula one. No matter how much we like/love the guy the facts are there. Bellof is another, we dont always deal with these characters objectively because we become fans and then there is a relationship and a loyalty.

Maybe its the question, are we discussing the most over-rated drivers in F1 looking back or the most over-rated drivers as they came into F1. Amon was one of the best all rounders in the days when race drivers did just thta race cars, F1/F2/F5000 Sportscars etc and credit so, but looking over F1 as a whole and his results and influence, top ten, sorry man we are going to disagree.

[AyePirate]

Originally posted by Don Capps:

To me, the seriously overrated drivers start with Mansell and Senna, both of who were obviously very good, but praised beyond their real abilities. However, these two have plenty of company...

Wow, I can't believe you said it, Don. Especially Senna. It's about time.
No single driver has done more to lower the standards of sportsmanship
than Senna. A great driver, but he provided the template for Schumacher's
whatever it takes to win ethic. Seemed to be kind of a prick when he had a heartbeat. now history's been revised and he's been beatified. He was no
Alain Prost

As far as current over rated drivers - Trulli. At the begining of every
season we get the same "this is going to be Trulli's breakthrough season" canard. The only thing that changes is the name of the driver who makes
him look bad.



[This message has been edited by AyePirate (edited 06-01-2000).]

[KzKiwi]

I always felt that Roberto Moreno was over rated as a GP driver, as was Stefan Johansson. As for Trulli I believe that this will be a make or break year for him. Don't lose sight of the fact that he has won a championship in every class of motorsport that he has competed in.

On a race track Senna was definately not overrated. The fact that he was fairly ruthless and occasionally lacking in morals does not make him overrated in my book. Another way of looking at this is that he brought 'new world' ethics to GP motor racing.

[green-blood]

I think we are falling for the same trap with Senna. How can someone who was so obviously head and shoulders above his contemporaries be an over-rated DRIVER. I agree revisionist history is now telling us that everything he did was brilliant, unture, but he was a superb driver.

[Huw Jenjin]

Here is how I would try and defend my position. The drivers I mentioned: 3 WCs + EI. They were just the first four examples that came into my head, no reflection on EI, or any doubt that they were all damn good to acheive the results that they did. But what were they like in middling or poor cars, did we ever get the chance to find out in some cases? Senna at least has put in some great performances in the wet in "less than best" cars, but then he is rated so MUCH higher than the others.
It is hype, rather than pure rating. I mean should we be rating their sportsmanship, their niceness out of the cockpit? their ability to always be there at the end?
Their guts and determination, or simply a level of pure car control that is higher than even the best of the rest?
My empathy is with the last category, although it would by no means produce the driver most likely to suceed.
That formula would entail total self belief, and singlemindeness. The four above had that in droves, but was their skill over rated, by us as well as them?
There is also a bit of the Pied piper syndrome too. I do not remember villeneuve or Bellof being doted on at the time, but once the likes of Nigel Roebuck get hold of particular favorites, they become gods.

[Don Capps]

I make no bones about it: I am not a Senna da Silva fan.

Period.

And, frankly, I could less what people think about that opinion.

By 1986 I sensed something about Senna da Silva in particular and F1 in general that just turned me off for years. Perhaps it was & is just me, but the period since 1985/1986 in F1 just leaves me cold. I even broke ranks again with DSJ (the first was over safety & Jackie Stewart) went it came to Senna da Silva. To me Senna da Silva was the Damien of F1...

I took great abuse (to put it mildly) over on the Readers Comments Forum about my opinion of Senna da Silva & F1, but I still think that he comes up short. He couldn't hold a candle to Fangio or Clark and Rosberg was a helluva lot more fun to watch...

Some times that is just how it is, a personal opinion is a personal opinion.

------------------
Yr fthfl & hmbl srvnt,

Don Capps

Semper Gumbi: If this was easy, we’d have the solution already…

[Ross Stonefeld]

Don, I'm generally interested to hear why you are of the opinion that Senna is overrated. I promise to reply politely

Ross Stonefeld
Aztec Group Motorsport

[Ross Stonefeld]

Sorry about that, GENUINELY interested

Ross Stonefeld
Aztec Group Motorsport

[Ray Bell]

I may be wrong, but I considered this thread to be about over-rating... not what the drivers were like, but whether or not they were held by their peers, their fans, the press or us to be more than they were.
Senna, in my opinion, may have been over-rated up until the 1994 San Marino Grand Prix. After that race he certainly was. Unquestionably.
So there is my perspective. That's why I say that Eddie Irvine is not over-rated, I've seen very little commendation of him that I wouldn't have expected to see. And plenty of bagging.
I also agree that I would have preferred to watch Keke than Senna, and Mansell rather than Piquet or Schumacher.

------------------
Life and love are mixed with pain...

[Keir]

Senna over-rated???????????

There were a number of drivers that I didn't hold in high regard over the course of my fanatic following of my favorite sport.
BUT, and I say this with all the candor that I can muster. How can anyone deny Senna's talent. If you refer to Senna as the greatest F1 driver of all time, that would still be under-rating his talent. Find a tape of Senna at work on a qualifing lap at Monaco - MAGIC!!!! Or in the rain, anywhere!!
I have gone on record as not liking Prost, but I can't dispute his talent. Prost finished first but rarely won races. (And yes, there is a great difference between the two.) Senna won races, PERIOD!!!!

If Senna is over-rated, then Fangio's 1957 German GP win must be a minor achievement in comparision, or maybe Moss's Mille Miglia win was just a sedate country drive????

Starting to sound a bit silly, isn't it???

Let's go to the video tape!!!

THE TRUTH IS OUT THERE!!!!

------------------
"I Was Born Ready"

[This message has been edited by Keir (edited 06-02-2000).]

[Ray Bell]

When Clark was racing, there was a general air of "we can't really beat him!" among the other drivers. But with Senna there was not the same level of dominance.
Of Fangio's contemporaries, I think that perhaps only Ascari felt he was on the same level.
Moss, when he had the cars to do the job, was seen to be only one you would beat with a better car.
But Senna had many challengers - Prost, Mansell, Piquet... they were out to beat him because they felt he could be beaten in more or less equal cars.
That was not the case with Clark and Fangio.
It's the RATING we're discussing here. Senna's rating went through the roof the moment his death was announced. That didn't happen when Clark died or when Fangio retired, or for that matter, when Moss crashed.
Sorry, Keir, I don't think I'm denigrating Senna, who I regarded as a true great (with the exception of that incident at the Adelaide Hairpin), but I do feel the eulogies have done him no service.

------------------
Life and love are mixed with pain...

[Don Capps]

Okay, let's try again:

Question: Was Senna da Silva over-rated?

Answer: Yes.



------------------
Yr fthfl & hmbl srvnt,

Don Capps

Semper Gumbi: If this was easy, we’d have the solution already…

[Joe Fan]

Here is my opinion on Senna. While I think he was obviously one of the best during his era, I think his tragic death help elevate his status just like it did with Gilles. Personally, I think Prost and Schumacher were better racers but I would have to admit that Senna was a better qualifier than either of them. Senna had a very aggressive style. This created an affinity to him by many but in the process turns off just as many people. I personally hold in high regard drivers who were able to walk away from the sport. There are many theories about Senna's death but from what I have seen in slow motion video clips and from what I have read by respected motorsports writers, his crash at Imola was Senna being Senna. I think he was just racing too hard (as usual) on cold tires and it finally came back to bit him.

[Darren]

To pick Ray's point up (ultimately to pervert it, though) there are several ways to address rating and ability. One would be to ask if a world championship winning driving is so good that he's worth all the subsequent adulation. Another would to be to ask if a driver who never won a championship deserves the general regard he is held in as a driver who should have won but for bad circumstances. And yet another would be to address the driver who never shook the world but who is popularly regarded as a solid, reliable performer. The issue as Ray identifies it is separating the hype from the performance, so if a driver can be said to have performed roughly in line with his general estimation, he's not over-rated. But whose ratings are we looking at?

My entrants for each of three categories above are Damon Hill (well regarded, but a lucky second driver); Stirling Moss (adequate opportunity to deliver what the Anglophile racing public thinks he was denied); Derek Warwick (a perfect example of how the sheer accumulation of miles can get you a seat).

[Huw Jenjin]

Now we are getting somewhere....
I think Ray has got it when he mentions the other drivers perspective of the driver in question.You have to rate their opinion as the best yardstick dont you?
I suppose that then raises the question of how good were the oposition at the time..........
Moss rates Fangio, Amon rated Clark.
Both Prost and Mansell reckoned they could beat Senna.
I think at one point Schmacher might have commanded that respect, in terms of ablity, but I think there are now some people on the scene, particularly his brother, who could give him a good run.

[Keir]

Good points, all.

BUT............

Fangio respected Moss, but felt he had him under control.

Everyone rated Clark, but Jim was always aware of Amon, Gurney and Hill. Jim always had Stewart's number, and never gave him a second thought.

Prost was as obsessed with Senna, as Senna was with him. Prost never beat Senna.
Mansell's views of himself are in the dictionary under "Over-rated"!!!!!

------------------
"I Was Born Ready"

[William Dale Jr]

I was and still am a very big fan of Senna,
but you have to point out that he was one
of if not the first to popularize blocking
tactics and aggressive driving. Remember
Brands Hatch in 1985? If not, go to the
Atlas site and look at the Race to Remember
for the European Grand Prix. Alternately
you could ask Keke Rosberg - I doubt he'd
have forgotten. Is aggressive driving a
legacy that we all wanted?
Probably not.
Despite being a real fan of his, Gilles
Villenuve has become very marginally over-
rated, but obviously not without a lot of
justification, after all, he was a superbly
talented driver from what I've seen/heard.
I'm not knocking Gilles, but I suppose his
stats would have been much better had it not
been for that fateful day in Belgium...

What the two drives above have in common, is
that because of their tragic deaths, they have
become much more well known throughout the
world because they were both top drivers who
died during the commercial era in F1.

[KzKiwi]

Stuff the eulogies and common press reports that occur as a result of a drivers death. Forget about them and focus on the track record and/or achievements of the drivers concerned BEFORE their death!

In this regard, guys like Senna and Bellof are not over rated. As an example Sennas arrogance or certain beliefs and resulting actions should not even come into the description of 'overrated'. When all was said and done he could get the best out of any car that he was in at the time.

As per Dons comment earlier, this is my personal view and so be it if others disagree. Thats what makes discussions like this entertaining!

To quote Cicero "Quot homines, tot sententiac" - so many people, so many views.

[Fast One]

When would Clark have been aware of Amon. Amon never had a competitive ride until 67, and the Ferrari that year was not exactly a top flight machine. Good, but definitely in the second or third rung, in spite of Chris's brilliant talent. By the time the Ferrari was starting to look competitive in 68, Jim was sadly dead. I do not take anything away from Chris by saying this, Keir. Chris was my second favorite driver. Clark had to be aware of Hill, Surtees, and Gurney when they had competitive machinery, but there was never a point in Clark's career where he would have had to give Amon a second thought. Now had Clark lived another year...

Now back to the topic: almost anyone who died got overrated as a consequence. Bellof was a good sports car driver, but other than one or two "on" days, never showed me much in F1. The thing about dying is that you never have to produce. had Wurz died after his first two races, he would have made that idiotic list Motorsport put together without doubt (like Tony Brise). It favored hugely drivers who had died, irrespective of how they performed while alive. Wurz looked like a future WDC based on those first couple of performances, but by living he actually was put in a position of having to walk the walk, which he simply hasn't been able to do. That's likely true of the vast majority of drivers who were killed before producing big results.

Rindt got firmly thrashed when he and Surtees were teammates, yet most people today would give the nod to Rindt. I daresay no one would have done that in the 60's. Amon and Moss's reputations survived intact because they were SO unlucky that they became romantic heroes. But had either been killed they would have been rated much higher by Motorsport, no doubt.



The most overrated driver of all-time is an easy pick. It is none other than Gilles Villeneuve, who managed to get Tazio Nuvolari's reputation out of Gerhard Berger's career. Honest. His career and Berger's up to the same number of races are eerily alike, yet no one foists Gerhard off as an all-time great. In four full seasons, Villeneuve split 2-2 with his teammates, only placed in the top six in the WDC once, and only showed that blazing speed he purportedly had on a handful of spectacular occasions. Gilles was never going to be a World Champion; he was to stupid to stop overrevving his engine and/or wrecking his car when he was in no position to improve his position. He died a spectacular and romantic death, no doubt. He was thrilling to watch on a handful of occasions, but exceedingly mediocre on the rest. Should he be admitted into anyone's Hall of Fame? Not even to use the restroom.

[Joe Fan]

Fast One, "not even to use the restroom"? That is a pretty strong statement. I will add that I think Jacques is better than his father was by a long shot. Maybe not as exciting but better.

[Fast One]

Ah, Joe, I was just being "literary"...

By the way, I have a bone to pick with you. I agreed to vote for masten if you agreed not to mention NASCAR on this BB for , what was it? 60 days or so. I see you've been at it again over in the Reader's Forum. Did you think I wouldn't notice? The rules committe will have to look into this to determine if Mastens place in the Pantheon of heroes should be revoked on a technicality!

You just can't resist a scrap, can you my friend?

[Keir]

Shocking stuff!!!

But, 1st things first. Jim Clark, by his own admission, was worried about Amon all during '67, Jim considered Chris a
"wild card" because he hadn't proven himself yet. Prior to the regular season in '68, while doing the Tasman series, Chris Amon was a constant source of concern for Clark and Jim went as far as to say that Chris was to be his chief rival that season. All this is well documented in the various Clark bios.

About Bellof, Stefan didn't need to die to establish himself as one of the best. The video tape evidence is out there.

About Villeneuve, there is only one, Gilles.
Jacques better than his father????
That is so much complete nonsense, I shouldn't respond, but
I feel I must. No one, I repeat, no one, had the talent shown by Gilles during that era in racing, not until the arrival of Senna did anyone grasp the hearts and minds of the racing community like Gilles did.
Just read the thread, pure unadulterated hatred with regard to Senna, Bellof being touted as "one trick pony", but to try to dillute Gilles's impact upon racing!!! Sometimes I wonder if some of you just landed from Mars!!!!
I've seen all of these guys race, first hand, up close and personal and they are truly deserving of all the adulation that comes their way. None of them even come close to myself, when I find a driver I don't like, say Prost for example, I state my case and move on. I never liked Prost, being over-rated. But I think most of the nonsense is the result of a strong dislike for said drivers.(read Senna) For but I never denied his talent.
As I have said before, "Let's go to the video tape"
Jacques better than Gilles!!! In what universe????
My dear departed mother could have won the drivers' championship in Jacques' Williams. And please tell me, what is Jacques doing now?? I know what Gilles would have been doing!!! Remember Monaco in '82???? Talent, pure and undeniable. Jacques will long be remembered for the various colors of his hair, Gilles will be remembered and is rememberd for his driving. By the way, I like Jacques, but he's no Gilles.

[Ray Bell]

I recall one day when Clark was totally aware of Amon... the whole duration of the 1968 Australian Grand Prix. And Amon was driving what would be expected to be the inferior car. Certainly power-wise, his Dino wouldn't be up to the DFV standard, but it's possible the car was lighter than the 49.
But you're right, generally. He wouldn't have been too worried about him in the Parnell days etc. 1967 would have lifted his awareness, particularly in the races prior to the Dutch GP. I think, however, you are underestimating just how far back the grid the front runners are looking.
Was there an Enna or somesuch race where they battled in 1.5s?
And while I'm totally aghast at the adulation levelled at corpses, I do rate Villeneuve a little higher than Berger. Maybe that's for his Moss characteristics rather than bravado and foolishness.
But wasn't Moss being foolish at Goodwood? Laps behind, but pushing for a perfect lap and to lower the lap record...
Incidentally, I am also disappointed at Joe failing to keep to his agreement... not that I would have noticed, RC is too much for me.

[Fast One]

That's precisely the point, Keir. Gilles grasped the hearts of people, who then rated him far above anything his actual career could justify. Isn't that the definition of an overrated driver? I think people remember those few spectacular days Gilles had, and forget all the times he ruined his car to no purpose. in 67 races, he managed 6 wins 2 poles (!) and 8 fastest laps. In his four full seasons, he was 2-2 against his teammates in points. Not bad numbers, but in Gerhard bergers first 68 races, he had 4 wins, 4 poles, and 8 fastest laps. pretty comparable numbers, with maybe a slight edge to GV. Other than rolling the dice at every corner, and looking mighty spectacular doing it, what exactly did GV accomplish? One second place in the WDC, which he lost to his teammate. Sorry, but I didn't see it then and I don't see it now. He was a faster, dumber version of Rindt.

I must be from Mars, too, because I also think Jaques is a better driver than his dad, and I've seen them up close and personal as well. He is not as spectacular, but he is alot smarter and every bit as brave.

The beauty of these arguments is that there is no resolution. We can all argue until we're blue in the face and never convince anyone else. I like the cold, calculating types like Prost and Lauda when I look at careers, even though I never rooted for them much as drivers. They didn't excite my passions, but they won, which is, after all, the object of the exercise. Gilles never cared about winning, I don't believ. i don't even think he considered what it took to BE fast. He just wanted to LOOK fast, which is a very, very different thing.

[Fast One]

Ray, I am not saying Berger was as good as Villeneuve at all. What I mean to illustrate is that Berger's statistics, which get him on no one's "best driver" list, are pretty comparable to Villeneuve's, who was rated #2 all time by that idiot at Motorsport. It seems to me that such a lofty ranking should actually be based on some career achievement beyond losing to your teamate the only time you ever made a run at the World Championship. GV was spectacular. that I will grant to anyone. He just wasn't anywhere close to my definition of greatness.

As for Amon, I tried to make it clear that I wasn't denigrating him. i was only pointing out that Amon's rise in Grand Prix racing came after Clark's death. He never had the car to be a threat before that.

[Caíco Caralho]

The most overrated drivers of all times: Ayrton Senna and Gilles Villeneuve. Senna won 3 titles with the same best car, fighting against just one contender... so, what a big deal? Besides he is taken as an example of a saint, and he put a lot of people out of the track, I remember. He was the best on qualifying and wet conditions, I agree... but he is overrated. About Gilles, what kind of image comes to our minds when we think about him? A broken car, without wings or wheels, crawling slowly across the track. He was fast, but he couldn't manage to avoid accidents or to conserve his equipment. I don't think he would win the F-1 championiship, because of his lack of regularity; he wouldn't be able to defeat drivers as Prost, Lauda or Piquet.
Other drivers overrated (but these didn't add anything to F-1 really): Gerhard Berger, Jean Alesi, Eddie Irvine, David Coulthard, Heinz-Harald Frentzen.

[Ray Bell]

And from Brazil... a Piquet fan. Welcome to the forum, please stay around and add a slant from another different world.

[Huw Jenjin]

Alesi over rated?. I'll get out of my arm chair for that one.
As a Grand Prix driver, Jean Alesi is the only one of the current mob who can shine a torch at Micheal Schumacher.
I think Jean has proved that he can't develop a motor car , or pull a team around him, which doesn't make him a complete package , I know, but put him in a good car, or even a dog in bad conditions, and there is only one current driver that can match his speed and aggression. Speech over.
As for JV ,who watched Monaco 2000. Well is JV just ordinary, or is Ricardo Zonta a superstar?

[Joe Fan]

Fast One and Ray, relax! The agreement never stated 60 consecutive days. Besides, I made Razor's day by just responding.

[Caíco Caralho]

I don't think Alesi can challenge Schumacher, or even could be able to... Alesi is one of the biggest jokes that appeared in F-1... Simply ridiculous! Rubens Barrichello also will be, if he doesn't improve his performance and get some victories driving a Ferrari... Well, Alesi had 5 years and 1 success; Rubens deserves more time than just 6 races to be criticized...

[Huw Jenjin]

Well lets just hope that we get an opportunity for you to be proved right, Alesi and Schumacher in equally competitive cars, one day. Yes, Alesi has made some critical errors (like allowing his car to run out of fuel), and Yes, he has only scord one victory. One more than Ralf, who is considered quicker than Micheal, ultimatetly.
Alesi is no where near the complete racing driver, but he has more natural speed than most of the pack put together, and in terms of shear driving talent, I'll stick to my guns, he is the only one who could match the Schumachers in equal machinery, particularly in difficult conditions.

[Ray Bell]

Looked great at the Nurburgring a few years back in the slush... Now there's something else comes to mind about poor Jean... the running out of petrol thing. Has anyone ever seen anything of an interview with him, a quote from him, about that incident?
Is it possible he knew something we didn't? Like the clutch was jiggered and he wouldn't have been able to get back out of the pits or something?
Then what he did would have made sense, wouldn't it.. exposure in front of the race for those few laps. Was there anything in the press anywhere?

[Caíco Caralho]

well, Alesi drove the reigning champion Benetton's Schumacher... He had enough chances to prove he is or was good... I don't think he proved, although his good performance in Monaco now. Just a regular and bad-lucky driver... like Barrichello still is... I think just 2 drivers could challenge Michael in an equal equipment: Ralf and Jacques Villeneuve (in certain occasions, not in the wet for sure, ha ha ha)

Another thing: Alesi didn't beat his 91 teammate, by the way it was Alain Prost in a bad moment. What a big deal defeating drivers such as Berger, Herbert or Diniz (which was not defeated, by the way)?? I just want some renovation in F-1, and Alesi must retire, besides Herbert, Diniz, Salo, Verstappen, Irvine,... people who didn't do anything appreciable. Barrichello had good results with poor cars, and he is a regular and bad-lucky such Alesi... But Alesi had chances in a big team, RB is having just now.

[Darren Galpin]

Caico, you suggest that Alesi had chances in big teams, but these chances were with teams which weren't exactly at their best at that time. Alesi did manage to finish first for Ferrari, and this despite it frequently breaking down. It took Jean Todt, Ross Brawn and Rory Byrne to sort the team out, and remember the embarrassing failures Schumacher had in the Ferrari in his first years, the car throwing a drive shaft in the pits? Hardly a team in the position to win lots of races. Alesi's character meant that he never got the drives in the big teams of the moment that his talent may have deserved - I believe he has the speed, but not the all round ability to make it to be WC.

You also suggest that Irvine should retire, but Barrichello should not, which I find to be a slightly odd assertion given their relative performances. Irvine got the upper hand over Barrichello when they were together at Jordan, and I would also suggest he has done better than Barrichello has at Ferrari so far this year - finishing second in the World Championship isn't something to be dismissed lightly, even if Michael Schumacher wasn't driving at the time. Diniz? Fine, I agree with that, and probably Verstappen too. Herbert? Unlucky also, but should probably equally call it time before his sense of humour runs out.

I can't help but wanting to ask one further question. Is Caico Caralho your pseudonym, or is it real name? I'm just curious...

[Huw Jenjin]

Hmm, this is going to run and run. The equal equipment thing, well it is true that Alesi couldnt cope with MS's Benetton, but it was reckoned by many to be an evil beast, and totally unsuited to most peoples driving except Schumacher's. Don't forget, i am not saying he is better or more complete than Micheal, just one of the few that can match the Germans driving skill.
He broke a contract with Williams to follow his heart to Ferrari, and i believe would have been a multiple world champ with Williams if he had not done so. He is i think one of the drivers whose ego needs a massage now and then if things go wrong, and it is unlikely that Frank and Patrick are suited to that task, so it probably would have ended in tears. the main thing CC, and the most important thing for me , is that the bloke is passionate about his motor racing, and damn good at it too.
That is enough for me.

[Caíco Caralho]

Darren

A driver can make his team to work around and develop a car. Why did Schummy win so many races and Alesi just once? Berger was luckiest than Alesi, but both didn't understand anything about mechanics, it seems. Good performances, and just this. Schumacher developed the car, Alesi never did such a thing.
About Irvine, he must retire because he won just in his last of 4 years in a big team like Ferrari. And no, he did not perform better than Barrichello! Irvine never scored a pole position, for example (and I'm just talking about Ferrari days), and Rubens did in Silverstone. He always finished behind the top 3 in the WDC, changing this situation just last year, because of Schumacher's accident. That's what Barrichello has been doing: 4th. Finally, Irvine didn't get upper hand over Barrichello at Jordan: most of time Rubens outqualified Eddie and scored more points. At least, similar performances. You're completely wrong at this point, check it out at Forix.
About my username, he he, it's obvious it's not my real name. It's a funny thing about Brazilian football (or soccer, as American people say)... It's a long story... Anyway, I was testing if Atlas would detect bad words in other language, ha ha ha.

[Darren Galpin]

CC

My other half is Carioca, which is why I had a chuckle at the name, and I just had to ask.....


I can see this discussion about Irvine and Barrichello going on and on. Yes, Barrichello got a pole position, but he was a tad lucky in this given the wet/dry nature of the track, and he finished 6th in the race. Given that he had a better reputation than Irvine at that point, and had driven for a year longer in F1 than Eddie, you would have expected him to do better, and Eddie was indeed banned for three races that year. He was far closer in '95, and it was clear at that time that Eddie had the psychological edge over Barrichello, and that as the season progressed, Barrichello's performances suffered as a result.

Irvine didn't get pole for Ferrari, but he did outqualify Schumacher (which cost Flavio Briatore quite a bit of cash, as he had a bet with Eddie Jordan, where Briatore would pay Jordan £100,000 if Irvine outqualified Schumacher, and Jordan would pay £10,000 if Schumacher outqualified Irvine), and the Ferrari wasn't so near the front of the grid at the time. Irvine could have won races before last year, but due to his contract he had to pull over and let Schumacher win. Remember Suzuka a couple of years back, when Irvine overtook Hakkinen and Schumacher in the same corner, led the race, and then pulled over to let Schumacher past? Given the praise heaped upon Barrichello by the Ferrari team, his performances have been a tad lacklustre, and have possibly been getting worse, and you would have expected better given that he was touted as being nearly as fast as Schumacher, and faster than Irvine.

I think that you are way off when saying the Berger understood nothing about mechanics. He had a long career involving a long period at McLaren partnering Senna, and he helped develop that car quite effectively. When at Benetton, Briatore had the team set up just around Schumacher, and had the car built to suit Schumachers' style, and when he wasn't there, it wasn't going to suit other drivers. Then Ross Brawn and Rory Byrne left, and you had the relatively inexperienced Nick Wirth from Simtek designing the car, and look where it has gone since.

As this thread is about over-rated drivers, I have to say that Irvine is not over-rated, as he was never rated that highly as a driver anyway. It was always his mouth which got him noticed. Barrichello was highly rated after Donington '93, but has never really lived up to his promise since. Berger was neither over or under-rated, and neither is Alesi. Who can forget his wet weather performances on slick tyres when everyone else is falling off the circuit while on wets?

[mtl'78]

About Villeneuve...

You people criticizing him make a good point. But you miss another. Gilles was a poor farm boy who grew up in a village of 1000 and never left until his 20's. Then in 2 short seasons of car racing, he was in Formula 1. He was not a smart or educated man. He really didn't understand the politics of F1 at all. when he signed with Maclaren in 1977, and caused a sensation by spinning out over 20 times in the practice sessions, he didn't realize or care that it made him look silly, for him it was the simplest way to find the limit of the car: spin it, check the speed, then next time back it off a bit... So when it came to championships, he didn't care. For him it was important to prove he had the speed to be in F1. His stated goal was to try and beat Jackie Stewarts' record of 27 wins, if he happenned to win WDC's along the way, all the better. Later, in his carrer, 1979 actually, after he accepted team orders and did not pass Sheckter to let him win the WDC, he was quoted as saying " I see that the championship is what's important, and that you must drive in this way if you want the support from your team" It was only his second season in F1 at a time of great drivers, he was still naive and inexperienced. Unfortunately, that was the last of his comtetitive rides... 1980, WDC Sheckter was unable to qualify his #1 car at some races... 1981 won 2 races in another very bad car. 1982 died at the 3rd or 4th race.

As far as him driving around slowly with a broken car... the 2 most famous incidents were Zandvoort 1979 and MTL 1981. Zandvoort was the race Gilles passed Jones for the lead on the OUTSIDE of Tarzan hairpin, then had a slow leak that exploded down the main straight. he did exactly what the drivers today all do, brought it back to the pits, but in those days the cars dragged on the ground with 4 wheels so, he drove it at full speed and destroyed it by the time he got to the pits... It was at the next race that he followed orders and didn't pass JS and gave him the WDC. Had it not been for that puncture... The Montreal 81 many cars. Gilles' nose was damaged, eventually the heavy wet weather caused it to flip up and obstruct his view. Fearing a black flag, he knocked it against the barriers, it fell off, and he FINISHED THIRD WITHOUT A FRONT WING' IN THE RAIN!
incident was at the start, there was an accident involving
I'll leave you with a few quotes:

Lauda: "He was the craziest devil in F1. He had the biggest talent of us all"

Tambay: (after the 11 second provisional pole) "I know no one commands magical powers, but he makes you wonder sometimes!"

Harvey Postlewaite: In early 1982 was quoted as saying he considered it unbelievable that GV had won 2 races with the 81 car.

JYS: "It's clear that he's a special talent. He still misses the odd apex and still drives in an overly-aggressive manner, but his miastakes are what keep him in touch with the others in the field"

Moss (speaking with Fangio) : "Villeneuve should have been racing in our time"

Fangio: (loosely) "Some drivers require 10, 20 laps of a circuit before they can make a competitive time. The best require 3 or 4, Villeneuve needed only 1 or 2. Enzo Ferrari, a man who'se opinion is as important as any, has compared him to Tazio Nuvolari, who was the great idol of my day."[p][Edited by mtl'78 on 06-09-2000]

[charles r]

TNF seems a different forum 10 years ago. Time this topic was refreshed!