Jump to content


Photo
* * - - - 7 votes

Top 20 Greatest F1 Drivers of all time - BBC list [split]


  • Please log in to reply
1662 replies to this topic

#201 1Devil1

1Devil1
  • Member

  • 1,747 posts
  • Joined: May 12

Posted 05 June 2012 - 23:16

So, do you then also include Jacques Villeneuve automatically in the top 20 because of his 1996 season?



I've got you Bunk - the comparison between Villeneuve and Hamilton is correct. To say lewis belongs in the top 20 just because of his first season is really funny. He showed his class, collected more points than Alonso. But he didn't win the championship, worked since his childhood with McLaren, had 1000 of pre-kilometers. He doesn't really fit in the normal rookie-model. Why should he be in the top 20 because of one good season? When people place him in the top 20 after his championship and great races he had, I can live with that, because we have a good basis to discuss about his position, but only because of 2007 - common guys. Next time check the other names between 15-20 - mostly multiple world champions :drunk:

Edited by 1Devil1, 05 June 2012 - 23:17.


Advertisement

#202 TheBunk

TheBunk
  • Member

  • 4,083 posts
  • Joined: May 11

Posted 05 June 2012 - 23:29

Thing is, the 1996 Williams was totally dominant while the 2007 Mclaren was perhaps slightly worse than the Ferrari that year. Despite that, Hamilton came just as close or closer than Villeneuve to winning the title in his début season.

Give Hamilton the FW-18 in his rookie season, let Hill be his teammate, and watch him win the title with relative comfort.

Note that I'm not even a Hamilton fan myself, but you can't compare him with Villeneuve, he's much better than that.


The stats say Hamilton equaled records set by...Jacques Villeneuve. The only thing he did better was score 2 more poles, in a season when the Mclaren was much better than the Ferrari over one lap. The 2007 Mclaren was also voted car of the year, and wouldv easely won the wcc too.

If Hammy should be top 20 for his rookie season alone, then so should Jacques.

If you look at career overal they are not too far apart either: 17 wins for Hammy in a car that could win every season over 5 years (allright, 2009 wasnt that good a car). Villeneuve has 11 wins and only had 2 seasons in a race winning capable car. Lost a few because of mech problems too, for instance his first race ever in F1 at Melbourne 1996. Villeneuve also took 4 consecutive poles in 1997, 5 out of the first 6 races, 10 in total over the entire season. Those are very respectable numbers indeed.

Edited by TheBunk, 05 June 2012 - 23:46.


#203 Zippel

Zippel
  • Member

  • 1,014 posts
  • Joined: December 07

Posted 06 June 2012 - 00:16

Jaques and Hill had a much better car than Schuey.


Absolutely not. In fact the 1998 McLaren had better tyres, engine, chassis and even brakes (for part of the season at least) than the Ferrari.

Haks Mclaren and Schu's Ferrari were pretty evenly matched especially in 99 and 2000.


But 1999 they were only racing together for half a year, and the rest of the time Hakkinen was cracking under the pressure of losing to Irvine. If in 1995 Schumi had been forced out for half a year could you imagine Damon Hill almost losing the title to Johnny Herbert?

Couldnt fault Hakkinen as a person and he was very clean on the track.His ranking seems about right unlike Hamiltons lol.


Agree.


Mika was a great driver and won minimum one race in 5 consecutive years from 1997-2001.


Yet someone like Damon Hill won more races within a 4 year bracket at Williams, with less experience and less support from his team. Not to mention his record would have been winning a minimum of one race in 6 consecutive years had he not had those troubles in Hungary.

Personally I think Mika was great but not this 'Schumi's only rival' that he's being made out to be.

#204 jj2728

jj2728
  • Member

  • 2,754 posts
  • Joined: January 04

Posted 06 June 2012 - 00:23

These lists are the shitz anyhow. Great fodder for debate, heated or otherwise, but not much more than that

#205 Zippel

Zippel
  • Member

  • 1,014 posts
  • Joined: December 07

Posted 06 June 2012 - 00:28

These lists are the shitz anyhow. Great fodder for debate, heated or otherwise, but not much more than that


Yeah, true. :D

I recently picked up Alan Henry's top 100 F1 drivers book and yeeeessh! :lol:

#206 CatharticF1

CatharticF1
  • Member

  • 256 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 06 June 2012 - 02:20

There can be no such thing as a definitive list.

And with this one there are two areas where it's human nature that the results are likely to be skewed:

* Current drivers having a higher position
* British drivers having a higher position

The time and make-up of the people contributing always has an effect; it's not that the British are more biased than anyone else or that now has the best drivers of all time. Necessarily.. :)

#207 devonjaks

devonjaks
  • New Member

  • 29 posts
  • Joined: May 12

Posted 06 June 2012 - 06:19

Hill and Villneuve had far better cars than Hakkinen. Mika was a great driver and won minimum one race in 5 consecutive years from 1997-2001. He was faster than Senna in some qualifyings, his one lap pace was unbelievable. In 2000 and in nearly equal machinery he pushed Michael to his absolute maximum leading to the awesome fight between both of them in suzuka qualifying 2000. For me Hakkinen is highly underrated the second best drivers of the late 90s and of the current grid (except Schumacher) I would only put Alonso ahead of him. He's definitely top-ten all time material.


How do you know they had much better cars than Mika?? How do you know he had near equal machinery to Michael in 2000??

His cars were just as dominant as Hills and Villeneuves, he was only rated so high because he was such a nice guy, who came back from adversity, and because the F1 world was so desperate for a true Schumacher rival after so many years without one.

#208 devonjaks

devonjaks
  • New Member

  • 29 posts
  • Joined: May 12

Posted 06 June 2012 - 06:26

The stats say Hamilton equaled records set by...Jacques Villeneuve. The only thing he did better was score 2 more poles, in a season when the Mclaren was much better than the Ferrari over one lap. The 2007 Mclaren was also voted car of the year, and wouldv easely won the wcc too.

If Hammy should be top 20 for his rookie season alone, then so should Jacques.

If you look at career overal they are not too far apart either: 17 wins for Hammy in a car that could win every season over 5 years (allright, 2009 wasnt that good a car). Villeneuve has 11 wins and only had 2 seasons in a race winning capable car. Lost a few because of mech problems too, for instance his first race ever in F1 at Melbourne 1996. Villeneuve also took 4 consecutive poles in 1997, 5 out of the first 6 races, 10 in total over the entire season. Those are very respectable numbers indeed.


In 2007 Hamilton matched Fernando Alonso, in points and pace. In 1996, Villenueve got beaten by Damon Hill and dominated in qualifying. Hamiltons season was a league above Villeneuve's unless you believe Damon Hill was a better driver than Fernando Alonso.

The Williams was also one of the most dominant cars of all time. The Mclaren was not even the best of the season.

#209 GSiebert

GSiebert
  • Member

  • 1,790 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 06 June 2012 - 08:01

Because I followed the sport very closley, and there was nothing to suggest Mika was close to Michaels class, unless you just assumed the cars were equal to begin with, which is of course absurd.


How about the cars Mika had from 1991 to 1997 ?;)

#210 devonjaks

devonjaks
  • New Member

  • 29 posts
  • Joined: May 12

Posted 06 June 2012 - 08:04

How about the cars Mika had from 1991 to 1997 ?;)


He could not win a single race or even get close over 4 seasons in a Mclaren, so how great could he be? Of course they were not GREAT cars, but great drivers dont need great cars to win, thats why they are great drivers! !

Edited by devonjaks, 06 June 2012 - 08:05.


#211 GSiebert

GSiebert
  • Member

  • 1,790 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 06 June 2012 - 08:51

Because it was not possible in that car. It happens sometimes occasionaly, but not 5 seasons, which is why historically great drivers do not go 5 seasons without a win. Over the long run a great driver can sometimes beat the odds. Mika couldn't, thats another reason he was nothing special. I have listed many other reasons already.


McLarens were crap from 1994 to 1996 so "it was not possible in those cars". And when they built a decent car in '97 Mika could have won 3 or 4 races if Mercedes had knew how to build engines that last more than half distance (Zeltweg, Silverstone and Nurb come to mind).

Edited by GSiebert, 06 June 2012 - 09:00.


#212 Oho

Oho
  • Member

  • 7,260 posts
  • Joined: November 98

Posted 06 June 2012 - 09:00

McLarens were crap from 1994 to 1996 so "it was not possible in those cars". And when they built a decent car in '97 Mika could have won 3 or 4 races if Mercedes had knew how to built engines that last more than half distance.


Actually Häkkinen had a couple of decent shots in 96 but the dice just rolled against him. At Spa he was pretty well positioned on a single stop strategy which was scrapped by Jos Verstappen's accident which bought safety car out on track and gave the double stoppers ahead of him an essentially free stop. Then two weeks later at Monza in the early laps he was leading the eventual winner, when he stripped off his front wing hitting a tire which had been knocked loose from a tire bollard in Rettifilo and was sitting a bit further down the track smack right on the racing line. At the time if I recall Micheal Schumacher noted how he would have picked it if it wasn't for Häkinnen right ahead of him.

Edited by Oho, 06 June 2012 - 09:23.


#213 devonjaks

devonjaks
  • New Member

  • 29 posts
  • Joined: May 12

Posted 06 June 2012 - 09:10

McLarens were crap from 1994 to 1996 so "it was not possible in those cars". And when they built a decent car in '97 Mika could have won 3 or 4 races if Mercedes had knew how to build engines that last more than half distance (Zeltweg, Silverstone and Nurb come to mind).


Highly unlikely that Mclaren built impossible to win with cars over so many seasons. We are talking about Mclaren here not Minardi. The great David Coulthard won 2 races in 97 and lost another certain win in canada, because of the premature race end. Mika presided over the longest winless streak in Mclaren history. Not something normally associated with great drivers.

#214 TheBunk

TheBunk
  • Member

  • 4,083 posts
  • Joined: May 11

Posted 06 June 2012 - 09:18

Mika had 26 poles and 20 wins from 67 races? My, thats very impressive!

Edited by TheBunk, 06 June 2012 - 09:18.


#215 devonjaks

devonjaks
  • New Member

  • 29 posts
  • Joined: May 12

Posted 06 June 2012 - 09:20

Mika had 26 poles and 20 wins from 67 races? My, thats very impressive!


Its easy to look impressive when you just count the races where a driver had the best car and ignore all the others.

#216 Oho

Oho
  • Member

  • 7,260 posts
  • Joined: November 98

Posted 06 June 2012 - 09:49

, probably better on overtaking...


Porbably not and I say that as a hopeless Häkkinen fan caught in the past. The very aspects that made Schumacher peerless in changing conditions I believe made him better suited for overtaking than Häkkinen, only that during his heyday, Schumacher rarely had to risk overtaking anyone on track.


#217 TheBunk

TheBunk
  • Member

  • 4,083 posts
  • Joined: May 11

Posted 06 June 2012 - 10:10

http://www.youtube.c...feature=related

Some Hakkinen moments in a grainy video

#218 MightyMoose

MightyMoose
  • RC Forum Host

  • 1,070 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 06 June 2012 - 12:13

Multiple posts have been written off.

I've asked before & I'll repeat it here now:

This thread is for discussion about The BBC's feature on the Top 20 drivers, we're trying to focus on each driver as they are introduced. I would prefer not to talk about "Who might be on the list & in what position", equally comments on "well driver x must be on the list because....." can be left till the conclusion of the series when this thread can become a bun fight & you can all argue why Brabham is so low, or why A,B or C driver wasn't in the list.

This thread has a lot of potential for quite a few users to find out there was F1 before Senna/Schumacher/Hamilton (delete as appropriate) and to discuss how good some of the less well known entrants here actually were.

Also, I removed several personal attacks, as is usual these breach our rules, please do treat each other with respect even if they have the point of view diametrically opposed to you! Failure to do so will lead to you sitting in the posting garage for a period of time.

Thanks, now back to Mika Hakkinen & other previously featured drivers!

#219 Wander

Wander
  • Member

  • 2,222 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 06 June 2012 - 19:53

Highly unlikely that Mclaren built impossible to win with cars over so many seasons. We are talking about Mclaren here not Minardi. The great David Coulthard won 2 races in 97 and lost another certain win in canada, because of the premature race end. Mika presided over the longest winless streak in Mclaren history. Not something normally associated with great drivers.

Statistics don't tell the whole story.

Advertisement

#220 PapaD

PapaD
  • Member

  • 39 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 06 June 2012 - 20:35

Highly unlikely that Mclaren built impossible to win with cars over so many seasons. We are talking about Mclaren here not Minardi. The great David Coulthard won 2 races in 97 and lost another certain win in canada, because of the premature race end. Mika presided over the longest winless streak in Mclaren history. Not something normally associated with great drivers.


The McLarens between 94 and 96 WERE terrible. They had no chance of winning, Benneton and Williams were so much faster. Even Ferrari were too.

#221 TheBunk

TheBunk
  • Member

  • 4,083 posts
  • Joined: May 11

Posted 06 June 2012 - 21:12

Hill and Villneuve had far better cars than Hakkinen. Mika was a great driver and won minimum one race in 5 consecutive years from 1997-2001. He was faster than Senna in some qualifyings, his one lap pace was unbelievable. In 2000 and in nearly equal machinery he pushed Michael to his absolute maximum leading to the awesome fight between both of them in suzuka qualifying 2000. For me Hakkinen is highly underrated the second best drivers of the late 90s and of the current grid (except Schumacher) I would only put Alonso ahead of him. He's definitely top-ten all time material.


Yeah, I am a big, big Schumacher fan, but man did Mika gave me a lot of sleepless nights. Very intelligent, ultra quick over one lap, and fearless in wheel to wheel. No wonder Michael feared and respected him.

#222 PLAYLIFE

PLAYLIFE
  • Member

  • 894 posts
  • Joined: May 03

Posted 06 June 2012 - 22:58

These top x drivers lists are usually pretty average.

I think they should not allow any current driver in the list; maybe Schumacher being the exception since he's had 'a full career' with outstanding results which you can rate him on. But drivers like Hamilton and Vettel, they're so young in their careers there's no way you can call them a 'great'. There's plenty of time for them to either get better or dare I say get a lot worse. Hell had we rated Hakkinen after his first 5 seasons he'd not even won a race!

#223 Spillage

Spillage
  • Member

  • 602 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 19 June 2012 - 10:58

http://www.bbc.co.uk...rmula1/18492552

Mansell at number 13. Not a bad call IMO

EDIT: Current list:

13 - Nigel Mansell
14 - Mika Hakkinen
15 - Lewis Hamilton
16 - Nelson Piquet
17 - Emerson Fittipaldi
18 - Jack Brabham
19 - Graham Hill
20 - Jochen Rindt

Edited by Spillage, 19 June 2012 - 11:02.


#224 aditya-now

aditya-now
  • Member

  • 6,789 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 19 June 2012 - 11:11

http://www.bbc.co.uk...rmula1/18492552

Mansell at number 13. Not a bad call IMO

EDIT: Current list:

13 - Nigel Mansell
14 - Mika Hakkinen
15 - Lewis Hamilton
16 - Nelson Piquet
17 - Emerson Fittipaldi
18 - Jack Brabham
19 - Graham Hill
20 - Jochen Rindt


Again a very Britanno-centric call - even with 31 GP wins, how to place Nigel ahead of Jack Brabham, Emerson Fittipaldi, Nelson Piquet and Mika Hakkinen?

BBC sure knows who their primary target audience is....


#225 Spillage

Spillage
  • Member

  • 602 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 19 June 2012 - 11:27

Again a very Britanno-centric call - even with 31 GP wins, how to place Nigel ahead of Jack Brabham, Emerson Fittipaldi, Nelson Piquet and Mika Hakkinen?

BBC sure knows who their primary target audience is....


Yeah, I agree, I'd say he deserves a place in the top 20 (perhaps even the top 15) but I wouldn't say he was better than Piquet or Fittipaldi, and certainly wouldn't put him ahead of Brabham.

#226 Collective

Collective
  • Member

  • 1,058 posts
  • Joined: June 05

Posted 19 June 2012 - 13:05

http://www.bbc.co.uk...rmula1/18492552

Mansell at number 13. Not a bad call IMO

EDIT: Current list:

13 - Nigel Mansell
14 - Mika Hakkinen
15 - Lewis Hamilton
16 - Nelson Piquet
17 - Emerson Fittipaldi
18 - Jack Brabham
19 - Graham Hill
20 - Jochen Rindt

Hamilton ahead of Piquet. Mansell ahead of both Hakkinen and Piquet. Apparently being British accounts for two driver championships in this crap of a list.

Edited by Collective, 19 June 2012 - 13:05.


#227 bub

bub
  • Member

  • 1,629 posts
  • Joined: July 11

Posted 19 June 2012 - 14:06

I agree with the list so far

#228 MightyMoose

MightyMoose
  • RC Forum Host

  • 1,070 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 19 June 2012 - 14:24

Certainly I think Fittipaldi & Brabham have a fair shout of being ahead of Mansell in this list so far, I personally would have Mansell ahead of Piquet, if only by a whisker and based upon personal preferences as much as anything.

For all his negative points outside the car, there wasn't many who could match Mansell on the track for pure excitement & drama and it wasn't all down to just being in a Williams Honda either. I can't recall anyone who seemed as visibly encouraged by racing on his hometracks as Mansell @ Silverstone & Brands Hatch.

Not forgetting of course he went across to Indycar and yes, Newman Haas were a very, very good team, but being honest, who picked him to win 4 oval races? Everyone thought Phoenix would be the norm & he'd win a lot of road courses.

Additionally, in case anyone doubts Mansell had the intelligence to set a car up and focus on the race, just watch Hungary 1989 - 12th to 1st, on a track that 1 year later would allow Boutsen to hold off Senna the whole race. He was always pretty good at Monaco, ignore 84 and the white line, look at 1981 where he qualified 3rd in the Lotus and got a nice new bonus retainer from Chapman.

Of course, he got beaten by Prost at Ferrari which you can't ignore, but there was plenty of times Mansell was at least a match for Prost that year, just he had some crappy luck and got worn down by the advanced political moves by AP.

There will be those who say Mansell was never anything special and people like Warwick were better and deserved the Williams seat more and there's logic to that, but given the tools Mansell was always a front runner and gave fans what they want to see, a car being pushed to it's limits. His results fully support his inclusion in this list imo.
MM

#229 ali_M

ali_M
  • Member

  • 1,115 posts
  • Joined: April 03

Posted 19 June 2012 - 15:16

Again a very Britanno-centric call - even with 31 GP wins, how to place Nigel ahead of Jack Brabham, Emerson Fittipaldi, Nelson Piquet and Mika Hakkinen?

BBC sure knows who their primary target audience is....


Memories are short, a natural thing, and the voting is done from the heart and not with the head. :stoned:

Drivers and teams win championships. Drivers and teams beat other drivers teams. I can't understand Michael beating Mika in 2000 or Mika beating Michael in 1998. In the same way, I find it difficult to say that Alonso beat Schumacher in 2005 or that Schumacher beat Alonso in 2004. It's not a spec'd series. We can only look at the successes of the driver given the equipment that he has. We can pick up who that driver/team's competition is over a season. We can look at consistency and the rate of capitalising on opportunities or pulling off head-shaking wins. We can look at how he compares with his teammate, though again, sweeping conclusions cannot be made.

We say that stats don't matter much when looking at Schumi, but then on the same vein lord other drivers without realizing that it's their race results that made us notice at all in the first place. We can't have it both ways. Our hearts get in the way when we blow incidents out of proportion and use them to negatively AND positively overshadow entire careers in unfair ways. Finally, we can be unforgiving at times and not admit that drivers do often get better with time and forever use a modest start to a career as something to overshadow stellar latter parts of a career. The converse also applies.

Some of the criticisms I read for underrating Schumacher's stats, one could easily apply to many of the others with great stats that they are apparently given full credit for. With that in mind Schumacher's stats cannot be ignored and undervalued and I'm not only referring to his championship wins but his unrelenting results that led to him seriously contending for other championships. He's definitely among the top 2 or 3. Our hearts determine the order of those 3.... 'he was nice or he was British or he drove for Ferrari, while the others weren't and such things that do not matter so much.'

I speak about Schumi here because he's a prime and VERY topical example of where, what I can consider unreasonable assessments can take us.

Edited by ali_M, 19 June 2012 - 15:25.


#230 Kvothe

Kvothe
  • Member

  • 6,655 posts
  • Joined: November 10

Posted 19 June 2012 - 15:53

Certainly I think Fittipaldi & Brabham have a fair shout of being ahead of Mansell in this list so far, I personally would have Mansell ahead of Piquet, if only by a whisker and based upon personal preferences as much as anything.

For all his negative points outside the car, there wasn't many who could match Mansell on the track for pure excitement & drama and it wasn't all down to just being in a Williams Honda either. I can't recall anyone who seemed as visibly encouraged by racing on his hometracks as Mansell @ Silverstone & Brands Hatch.

Not forgetting of course he went across to Indycar and yes, Newman Haas were a very, very good team, but being honest, who picked him to win 4 oval races? Everyone thought Phoenix would be the norm & he'd win a lot of road courses.

Additionally, in case anyone doubts Mansell had the intelligence to set a car up and focus on the race, just watch Hungary 1989 - 12th to 1st, on a track that 1 year later would allow Boutsen to hold off Senna the whole race. He was always pretty good at Monaco, ignore 84 and the white line, look at 1981 where he qualified 3rd in the Lotus and got a nice new bonus retainer from Chapman.

Of course, he got beaten by Prost at Ferrari which you can't ignore, but there was plenty of times Mansell was at least a match for Prost that year, just he had some crappy luck and got worn down by the advanced political moves by AP.

There will be those who say Mansell was never anything special and people like Warwick were better and deserved the Williams seat more and there's logic to that, but given the tools Mansell was always a front runner and gave fans what they want to see, a car being pushed to it's limits. His results fully support his inclusion in this list imo.
MM



Memories are short, a natural thing, and the voting is done from the heart and not with the head. :stoned:

Drivers and teams win championships. Drivers and teams beat other drivers teams. I can't understand Michael beating Mika in 2000 or Mika beating Michael in 1998. In the same way, I find it difficult to say that Alonso beat Schumacher in 2005 or that Schumacher beat Alonso in 2004. It's not a spec'd series. We can only look at the successes of the driver given the equipment that he has. We can pick up who that driver/team's competition is over a season. We can look at consistency and the rate of capitalising on opportunities or pulling off head-shaking wins. We can look at how he compares with his teammate, though again, sweeping conclusions cannot be made.

We say that stats don't matter much when looking at Schumi, but then on the same vein lord other drivers without realizing that it's their race results that made us notice at all in the first place. We can't have it both ways. Our hearts get in the way when we blow incidents out of proportion and use them to negatively AND positively overshadow entire careers in unfair ways. Finally, we can be unforgiving at times and not admit that drivers do often get better with time and forever use a modest start to a career as something to overshadow stellar latter parts of a career. The converse also applies.

Some of the criticisms I read for underrating Schumacher's stats, one could easily apply to many of the others with great stats that they are apparently given full credit for. With that in mind Schumacher's stats cannot be ignored and undervalued and I'm not only referring to his championship wins but his unrelenting results that led to him seriously contending for other championships. He's definitely among the top 2 or 3. Our hearts determine the order of those 3.... 'he was nice or he was British or he drove for Ferrari, while the others weren't and such things that do not matter so much.'

I speak about Schumi here because he's a prime and VERY topical example of where, what I can consider unreasonable assessments can take us.


Can I silently applaud you both for two excellent posts.

#231 TheBunk

TheBunk
  • Member

  • 4,083 posts
  • Joined: May 11

Posted 21 June 2012 - 07:51

Certainly I think Fittipaldi & Brabham have a fair shout of being ahead of Mansell in this list so far, I personally would have Mansell ahead of Piquet, if only by a whisker and based upon personal preferences as much as anything.

For all his negative points outside the car, there wasn't many who could match Mansell on the track for pure excitement & drama and it wasn't all down to just being in a Williams Honda either. I can't recall anyone who seemed as visibly encouraged by racing on his hometracks as Mansell @ Silverstone & Brands Hatch.

Not forgetting of course he went across to Indycar and yes, Newman Haas were a very, very good team, but being honest, who picked him to win 4 oval races? Everyone thought Phoenix would be the norm & he'd win a lot of road courses.

Additionally, in case anyone doubts Mansell had the intelligence to set a car up and focus on the race, just watch Hungary 1989 - 12th to 1st, on a track that 1 year later would allow Boutsen to hold off Senna the whole race. He was always pretty good at Monaco, ignore 84 and the white line, look at 1981 where he qualified 3rd in the Lotus and got a nice new bonus retainer from Chapman.

Of course, he got beaten by Prost at Ferrari which you can't ignore, but there was plenty of times Mansell was at least a match for Prost that year, just he had some crappy luck and got worn down by the advanced political moves by AP.

There will be those who say Mansell was never anything special and people like Warwick were better and deserved the Williams seat more and there's logic to that, but given the tools Mansell was always a front runner and gave fans what they want to see, a car being pushed to it's limits. His results fully support his inclusion in this list imo.
MM


:up:


Memories are short, a natural thing, and the voting is done from the heart and not with the head. :stoned:

Drivers and teams win championships. Drivers and teams beat other drivers teams. I can't understand Michael beating Mika in 2000 or Mika beating Michael in 1998. In the same way, I find it difficult to say that Alonso beat Schumacher in 2005 or that Schumacher beat Alonso in 2004. It's not a spec'd series. We can only look at the successes of the driver given the equipment that he has. We can pick up who that driver/team's competition is over a season. We can look at consistency and the rate of capitalising on opportunities or pulling off head-shaking wins. We can look at how he compares with his teammate, though again, sweeping conclusions cannot be made.

We say that stats don't matter much when looking at Schumi, but then on the same vein lord other drivers without realizing that it's their race results that made us notice at all in the first place. We can't have it both ways. Our hearts get in the way when we blow incidents out of proportion and use them to negatively AND positively overshadow entire careers in unfair ways. Finally, we can be unforgiving at times and not admit that drivers do often get better with time and forever use a modest start to a career as something to overshadow stellar latter parts of a career. The converse also applies.

Some of the criticisms I read for underrating Schumacher's stats, one could easily apply to many of the others with great stats that they are apparently given full credit for. With that in mind Schumacher's stats cannot be ignored and undervalued and I'm not only referring to his championship wins but his unrelenting results that led to him seriously contending for other championships. He's definitely among the top 2 or 3. Our hearts determine the order of those 3.... 'he was nice or he was British or he drove for Ferrari, while the others weren't and such things that do not matter so much.'

I speak about Schumi here because he's a prime and VERY topical example of where, what I can consider unreasonable assessments can take us.



:up:

#232 D.M.N.

D.M.N.
  • RC Forum Host

  • 7,102 posts
  • Joined: May 08

Posted 04 July 2012 - 08:08

12. Gilles Villeneuve: http://www.bbc.co.uk...rmula1/18690210

#233 MightyMoose

MightyMoose
  • RC Forum Host

  • 1,070 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 05 July 2012 - 02:30

Ah, an interesting selection here imo:

1st of all, I was a huge GV fan, if you can be a huge GV fan at the age of 6-8 that is!

It's obviously based upon a spectacular talent cut short way too early, to rank him ahead of multiple world champions could raise a lot of eyebrows but it's not because he's just being recalled fondly due to his premature death. His wins in 1981, especially Monaco were simply outstanding - Jarama though good owed a lot to a great start & Jones stuffing it off the road but a better defensive drive you will struggle to see - not a single chop/usher off the track, just pure skill and outstanding concentration. That 1981 Ferrari may just be one of the all-time worst cars to ever win a race, it was to use GV's quote "a shitbox".

His detractors will point to the many crashes, the so-called recklessness of his style & his mechanical harshness, they are far outweighed in my mind by his ability to get the maximum out of his car, he wasn't as crazy as people will have you believe, for Zandvoort 79 there is a Dijon 79, for Silverstone 81 there is Watkins Glen 79. Sure Ferrari built him super strong driveshafts, but often incidents occurred when the car was in a place no normal driver could have put it. That was the miracle of Gilles.

Another observation, and again a disclaimer: Pironi was a complete asshole at Imola in 82- check the stories and the lap-times, GV had him covered all day long, and Pironi stole it - that's how I saw it then, it's how I see it now & forever more... Gilles was virtually the last F1 driver to have honor, class & honesty. How many guys would sit up the ass of their team-mate knowing to do so would mean 2nd in the WDC? Don't give me that "A true racer would have passed" to say that is to forget F1 existed before the mid-80's when team orders & an everyman for himself became de riguer. As is well known, he would give a fellow driver an inch more than he needed, no more, but never no less.... and the next corner he'd be back trying to re-pass. I have no quote to hand, but it could be in the biography of him, did anyone else hear that Pironi had a huge crash in pre-season testing in 1982? At Paul Ricard he ended up in the spectator section at Signes. Allegedly GV, who let's not forget obliterated DP in 1981, spoke to some journalists early in the season and said something along the lines of 'Take it easy on Didier, that was a huge crash and he's still recovering". His reward was to be stabbed in the back at Imola.

I don't doubt his fatal crash was a combination of circumstance and GV being GV.... but we shouldn't condemn him for making an error that led to his death, nor the crash in Fuji that killed 4 people, he was what he was, a fantastic driver, arguably one of the most skilled, certainly one of the most fervently remembered & definitely one of the most missed. For every NASCAR fan who will always say 3 is forever associated with Dale Earnhardt, Formula 1 fans know 27 will always be Gilles.

Enough of my recollections, here's quotes on the BBC page by those who actually raced him :

Jody Scheckter called him "the fastest driver the world has ever seen".

Alain Prost said Villeneuve was "the last great driver - the rest of us are a bunch of good professionals".

Jacques Laffite - second to Villeneuve in Jarama 1981 - said: "No human being can do miracles, you know, but Gilles made you wonder."

Keke Rosberg on Villeneuve: He was the worst person to race against because he would never give up, but he was always fair. A great driver!
MM



#234 MP422

MP422
  • Member

  • 1,631 posts
  • Joined: November 11

Posted 05 July 2012 - 03:15

Ah, an interesting selection here imo:

1st of all, I was a huge GV fan, if you can be a huge GV fan at the age of 6-8 that is!

It's obviously based upon a spectacular talent cut short way too early, to rank him ahead of multiple world champions could raise a lot of eyebrows but it's not because he's just being recalled fondly due to his premature death. His wins in 1981, especially Monaco were simply outstanding - Jarama though good owed a lot to a great start & Jones stuffing it off the road but a better defensive drive you will struggle to see - not a single chop/usher off the track, just pure skill and outstanding concentration. That 1981 Ferrari may just be one of the all-time worst cars to ever win a race, it was to use GV's quote "a shitbox".

His detractors will point to the many crashes, the so-called recklessness of his style & his mechanical harshness, they are far outweighed in my mind by his ability to get the maximum out of his car, he wasn't as crazy as people will have you believe, for Zandvoort 79 there is a Dijon 79, for Silverstone 81 there is Watkins Glen 79. Sure Ferrari built him super strong driveshafts, but often incidents occurred when the car was in a place no normal driver could have put it. That was the miracle of Gilles.

Another observation, and again a disclaimer: Pironi was a complete asshole at Imola in 82- check the stories and the lap-times, GV had him covered all day long, and Pironi stole it - that's how I saw it then, it's how I see it now & forever more... Gilles was virtually the last F1 driver to have honor, class & honesty. How many guys would sit up the ass of their team-mate knowing to do so would mean 2nd in the WDC? Don't give me that "A true racer would have passed" to say that is to forget F1 existed before the mid-80's when team orders & an everyman for himself became de riguer. As is well known, he would give a fellow driver an inch more than he needed, no more, but never no less.... and the next corner he'd be back trying to re-pass. I have no quote to hand, but it could be in the biography of him, did anyone else hear that Pironi had a huge crash in pre-season testing in 1982? At Paul Ricard he ended up in the spectator section at Signes. Allegedly GV, who let's not forget obliterated DP in 1981, spoke to some journalists early in the season and said something along the lines of 'Take it easy on Didier, that was a huge crash and he's still recovering". His reward was to be stabbed in the back at Imola.

I don't doubt his fatal crash was a combination of circumstance and GV being GV.... but we shouldn't condemn him for making an error that led to his death, nor the crash in Fuji that killed 4 people, he was what he was, a fantastic driver, arguably one of the most skilled, certainly one of the most fervently remembered & definitely one of the most missed. For every NASCAR fan who will always say 3 is forever associated with Dale Earnhardt, Formula 1 fans know 27 will always be Gilles.

Enough of my recollections, here's quotes on the BBC page by those who actually raced him :

Jody Scheckter called him "the fastest driver the world has ever seen".

Alain Prost said Villeneuve was "the last great driver - the rest of us are a bunch of good professionals".

Jacques Laffite - second to Villeneuve in Jarama 1981 - said: "No human being can do miracles, you know, but Gilles made you wonder."

Keke Rosberg on Villeneuve: He was the worst person to race against because he would never give up, but he was always fair. A great driver!
MM


Thanks for that, I was just a baby when he raced to have been a fan but from what i have seen gilles was magic and very professional with his rivals. IMO we can't condemn or blame drivers for tragedies on the circuits it's a risk everyone must accept with motor racing.

#235 H2H

H2H
  • Member

  • 2,891 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 05 July 2012 - 14:16

Well I guess the easiest and safer way for them is to use absolute numbers of how much WDC, WCC, Poles, Wins, etc to calculate how great a driver is, but maybe they don't bother in comparing the kind of machinery at the disposal of the drivers as then it gets much more subjective.


They put Gilles on 12, it should be blindingly obvious that they are very much taking the kind of machinery at the disposal of the drivers into account. But you can seemingly just think in black and white, with one guy doing heroics in an always inferior car and another easing his way to wins in ever dominant machines.

It is, as I have said earlier, is not a fantasy world out there but some live in one.

Edited by H2H, 05 July 2012 - 14:18.


#236 SirRacer

SirRacer
  • Member

  • 1,162 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 05 July 2012 - 16:04

They put Gilles on 12, it should be blindingly obvious that they are very much taking the kind of machinery at the disposal of the drivers into account. But you can seemingly just think in black and white, with one guy doing heroics in an always inferior car and another easing his way to wins in ever dominant machines.

It is, as I have said earlier, is not a fantasy world out there but some live in one.

Gilles is considered by many a legend even if he didn't won a WDC, it's common knowdledge, I don't think they had to do much research to put him somewhere near the top :rotfl:

Edited by SirRacer, 05 July 2012 - 16:04.


#237 Zava

Zava
  • Member

  • 4,743 posts
  • Joined: September 10

Posted 05 July 2012 - 16:23

Gilles is considered by many a legend even if he didn't won a WDC, it's common knowdledge, I don't think they had to do much research to put him somewhere near the top :rotfl:

then decide if they are going by number of poles, wins, wdcs or by common knowledge if he is a legend!
oh wait, I know: in Seb's case it will be the first one, in Alonso's, the second one. :rolleyes:

#238 SirRacer

SirRacer
  • Member

  • 1,162 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 05 July 2012 - 16:39

then decide if they are going by number of poles, wins, wdcs or by common knowledge if he is a legend!
oh wait, I know: in Seb's case it will be the first one, in Alonso's, the second one. :rolleyes:

To be honest, Gilles is in that top because he was fun to watch and because he died in an accident.
He was pretty much always beat by his team-mates.

#239 MightyMoose

MightyMoose
  • RC Forum Host

  • 1,070 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 05 July 2012 - 17:41

To be honest, Gilles is in that top because he was fun to watch and because he died in an accident.
He was pretty much always beat by his team-mates.

Don't agree with this statement AT ALL - as can probably be seen from my post above..... but just to be fair, I'll check it out and see....

Here we go, based on classification:
1977 - 3 races - 1 for McLaren, 2 for Ferrari : He lost the "team-mate" battle 2-1
1978 - 16 races - He beat Reutemann 9-7 in results, though he lost the points battle 48-17
1979 - 15 races - 8-7 to GV though of course Scheckter beat him in the championship 51-47 (60-53 with dropped scores).
1980 - 14 races - 9-5 over Scheckter, 6-2 in points.
1981 - 15 races - 7-8 to Pironi, 25-9 to GV in points.
1982 - 4 races - 0-4 to Pironi (worth noting that includes Long Beach where GV finished 3rd and was DQ'd whereas DP crashed on lap 6, plus of course Imola...)

Anyway, that tally which of course includes several double retirements and tells very little about how each race panned out, comes to: 34-33 to GV, Points in full seasons come to 75-110.

So no doubt some will say "see he got owned", but I'd say that's a pretty equal split, especially if you choose to put down 1978 as his rookie year. What surprises me is how close in race results DP took him, but as I've mentioned the classification doesn't tell us exactly how the race played out and my memory says GV had margin in hand at the majority of races.

GV and his style will always be polarizing, but to say he got "pretty much beat by all his team mates" is simply not stacking up in my opinion.
MM

Advertisement

#240 joshb

joshb
  • Member

  • 3,075 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 05 July 2012 - 17:42

Brits like a plucky trier over someone who wins endlessly. We struggle to appreciate great performances by a team/athlete/whatever but love a trier who entertains but ultimately falls short
That's why I'm one of not many UK based Vettel fans :)

And that's why Villeneuve/Mansell especially are ranked highly

#241 SirRacer

SirRacer
  • Member

  • 1,162 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 05 July 2012 - 17:51

Don't agree with this statement AT ALL - as can probably be seen from my post above..... but just to be fair, I'll check it out and see....

Here we go, based on classification:
1977 - 3 races - 1 for McLaren, 2 for Ferrari : He lost the "team-mate" battle 2-1
1978 - 16 races - He beat Reutemann 9-7 in results, though he lost the points battle 48-17
1979 - 15 races - 8-7 to GV though of course Scheckter beat him in the championship 51-47 (60-53 with dropped scores).
1980 - 14 races - 9-5 over Scheckter, 6-2 in points.
1981 - 15 races - 7-8 to Pironi, 25-9 to GV in points.
1982 - 4 races - 0-4 to Pironi (worth noting that includes Long Beach where GV finished 3rd and was DQ'd whereas DP crashed on lap 6, plus of course Imola...)

Anyway, that tally which of course includes several double retirements and tells very little about how each race panned out, comes to: 34-33 to GV, Points in full seasons come to 75-110.

So no doubt some will say "see he got owned", but I'd say that's a pretty equal split, especially if you choose to put down 1978 as his rookie year. What surprises me is how close in race results DP took him, but as I've mentioned the classification doesn't tell us exactly how the race played out and my memory says GV had margin in hand at the majority of races.

GV and his style will always be polarizing, but to say he got "pretty much beat by all his team mates" is simply not stacking up in my opinion.
MM

Yea well, he matched or hardly beat his team-mates, hardly an achivement considering who they were.

As I said, in my very honest opinion, if Gilles didn't die in the accident he did, he wouldn't be on that top 20 list

Edited by SirRacer, 05 July 2012 - 17:52.


#242 Zava

Zava
  • Member

  • 4,743 posts
  • Joined: September 10

Posted 05 July 2012 - 18:04

Yea well, he matched or hardly beat his team-mates, hardly an achivement considering who they were.

As I said, in my very honest opinion, if Gilles didn't die in the accident he did, he wouldn't be on that top 20 list

or who knows, he could've had the chance to get those WDCs, wins, poles, to be up there.
though I'm not saying that becausevof this argument he should be there, and even if it sounds rude, dying at the right time helps your legend status. who knows, maybe if poor ol' Ayrton didn't die, and would've raced until '96, if he retired with no more WDCs (though with those williamses, he most likely would've got some) he wouldn't be THE greatest in so much people's eyes, 'only' one of the greats, like, say, Stewart.
the question is, which driver wants to die early just to be a bigger legend... most probably none of them.

#243 jj2728

jj2728
  • Member

  • 2,754 posts
  • Joined: January 04

Posted 05 July 2012 - 19:17

Yea well, he matched or hardly beat his team-mates, hardly an achivement considering who they were.


Then obviously you never saw him race. Of his teammates, all were at the top of their games when they were paired with Gilles. Had Pironi not crashed at Hockenheim in '82 the general consensus is that he would have won the WDC that year.

#244 ali_M

ali_M
  • Member

  • 1,115 posts
  • Joined: April 03

Posted 05 July 2012 - 19:33

Then obviously you never saw him race. Of his teammates, all were at the top of their games when they were paired with Gilles. Had Pironi not crashed at Hockenheim in '82 the general consensus is that he would have won the WDC that year.


IMO, that 'IF' is generated by the same emotion that GV's greatness is buoyed through his untimely death and the circumstances that surrounded it. Yes, I saw them race. :)

#245 aditya-now

aditya-now
  • Member

  • 6,789 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 05 July 2012 - 21:49

IMO, that 'IF' is generated by the same emotion that GV's greatness is buoyed through his untimely death and the circumstances that surrounded it. Yes, I saw them race. :)


And yes, Pironi and Villeneuve were the fastest racers of their era.

Interesting to see that Pironi defeated Gilles in results both in 1981 and in the short stretch in 1982 - Didier was a more calculating, thinking driver than Gilles, and it showed. However, also Pironi was over the top, and needlessly he drove that fast at a wet untimed session Saturday morning in Hockenheim 1982, having already scored the fastest lap.

In a way you could say, both Gilles and Didier were absolutely driven, and both eliminated themselves in the end.

Sad, very sad, as those two were in my eyes the last two drivers of olden times. I still have a letter that Didier Pironi had sent me after I sent recovery wishes to him - he promised to come back and become champion - "Sportivement, votre Didier Pironi"

In terms of the greatest drivers of all time list, it is quite experimental to put Gilles up so high. Why not Jochen Rindt (not in vain the favorite of Vettel) who also won 6 GPs plus a WDC? Jochen was blindingly fast as well, minus the brainless stunts that Gilles was famous for. Let us not forget that Gilles killed a spectator and a marshall in his first GP for Ferrari at Fuji 1977 (a feat his son Jacques mirrored, when he killed a marshall in Melbourne 2001...). Ronnie had no chance, Gilles drove into his back like a Maldonado would do nowadays.

In terms of present day driver etiquette Gilles would have had many reprimands, drive-through penalties, and maybe even race bans. Dangerous driving more than necessary, though undoubtedly supremely inspired.

Mighty Moose, here you go again, any 6 - 8 year old was a fan of Gilles in those days, he was simply the most spectacular driver.

#246 PNSD

PNSD
  • Member

  • 3,258 posts
  • Joined: February 08

Posted 05 July 2012 - 22:08

Let us not forget that Gilles killed a spectator and a marshall in his first GP for Ferrari at Fuji 1977 (a feat his son Jacques mirrored, when he killed a marshall in Melbourne 2001...). Ronnie had no chance, Gilles drove into his back like a Maldonado would do nowadays.


Never knew that about Gilles. Interesting. The incident with jacques as a strange one, was Jacques not punted off (by Ralf?)?

Funny how people were calling for Pastor's head, yet here Gilles was equally aggressive and is hailed as one of the best despite this incident. I wonder if in 30/40 years people will admire Pastor if he too has some success?

I guess it goes to show how much of a hate-hunt it was on Pastor by some pissed off fanboys. I thank you for bring that to attention!

edit - to keep on topic, Jochen was amazing, and he is one of the reasons I despise Chapman and despise the fact that he is admired by some, yet IMO one of the worst men to have ever step foot in the paddock.

Edited by PNSD, 05 July 2012 - 22:09.


#247 Dispenser89

Dispenser89
  • Member

  • 3,454 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 05 July 2012 - 22:32

Ralf had brake problems and braked much earlier into turn 3 than JV expected and he went over the top of him.

On topic. Seems a bit high for GV, but then i don't agree with much of the list so far.

#248 jj2728

jj2728
  • Member

  • 2,754 posts
  • Joined: January 04

Posted 05 July 2012 - 23:21

Interesting to see that Pironi defeated Gilles in results both in 1981 and in the short stretch in 1982 - Didier was a more calculating, thinking driver than Gilles, and it showed. However, also Pironi was over the top, and needlessly he drove that fast at a wet untimed session Saturday morning in Hockenheim 1982, having already scored the fastest lap.


Pironi most assuredly did not defeat Gilles results/points wise in 1981. Villeneuve won at both Monaco and Spain and finished on 25 points to Didier's 9.
As far as 1982 goes, well that's a whole other kettle of fish.




#249 jj2728

jj2728
  • Member

  • 2,754 posts
  • Joined: January 04

Posted 05 July 2012 - 23:27

edit - to keep on topic, Jochen was amazing, and he is one of the reasons I despise Chapman and despise the fact that he is admired by some, yet IMO one of the worst men to have ever step foot in the paddock.


Why do you despise Chapman and despise the fact that he is admired by some? He pushed the envelope, yes, but his drivers to a man knew that before stepping into the cockpit. Rindt knew that he was risking it big time by signing for Lotus instead of Brabham in 1969. His manager, one B. Eccelstone told him as much. Clark, Hill, Fittipaldi, Peterson, Andretti all knew that, but they were all willing to take that risk because they knew that Chapman would deliver a car capable of winning races and WDCs.

#250 motorhead

motorhead
  • Member

  • 795 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 05 July 2012 - 23:32

Its easy to look impressive when you just count the races where a driver had the best car and ignore all the others.


Jeez, how Vettel and alonso had most of their wins. Nigel Mansell or Damon Hill are the best example of a dominant car factor...or just look at Lewis who has never driven a car that couldn´t compete unlike Mika who fought his way to McLaren