221 replies to this topic

[George Costanza]

There is more to unforced errors than 'serious collisions', and what is to say a serious collision is 'unforced'.... two cars battling can lead to a bit of contact- see Alonso on Vettel at Spa this year as an example. They all make errors, some more memorable, or more spoken about on here in any case.

As for Monaco '04, that was the other Williams, i.e Ralf, not JPM, and was really Alonso's own error for running out on the marbles through the bend of the tunnel. From that race Montoya can probably attest to a guy in a Ferrari jumping on the anchors in the tunnel and squeezing him against the barriers as he took avoiding action....

 

Monaco 04 was simply Jarno Trulli's day. I don't think Fred would have won that anyway.

 

As for the unforced errors, Fred is probablty the best at not making those errors.

[sopa]

I think "errors" is just part of the overall package of a driver. For example I can barely remember drivers like Jenson Button or Nick Heidfeld making mistakes, but does it make them the best? They are just good clean racers, and avoiding mistakes happens to be among their strengths. Also I remember a guy named Tiago Monteiro, who finished all races but one in his debut season. Didn't make mistakes either, was just slow.

[sennafan24]

 Im not sure I'd rate Vettel up there with Hakkinen. Mika was the second best driver on the grid, no doubting it. Vettel doesn't come across as that strong to me. 

Mika was number 2, but only Schumi was a top driver during his era (1994-2001)

 

Vettel's era involves - Alonso, Lewis, Jenson and D.R. 

 

MIka's main rivals for the number 2 spot were Hill, Frentzen and J.V. All solid drivers, but were they any better than say Hulk, Kimi and Rosberg? The depth in talent in Vettel's era, is deeper than it was in Mika's era. 

 

Vettel has had 2 weak/average years (2012 and 2014). Mika was a bit more inconsistent. Mika had weak/average years in 1997, 1999 and 2001 (although he did have a lot of bad fortune in those years, especially 2001). I would say there is a serious argument that Seb is a better driver than Mika, or at least his equivalent. 

 

Also, Seb still has a long way to go. My opinion on him is far from fixed. 

[metz]

Sopa, Your example of Button and Heidfeld is good.

A study in passing was Monaco '05.

Webber the number 1 driver at Williams was dutifully followed by team mate Heidfeld for 52 laps.

Webber in 3rd could not get past Alonso.

Heidfeld changed strategy, jumped MW in the pits and made one of the best ever passing moves on Alonso, finishing 2nd.

Webber then made two attempts at Alonso, first one botched completely and the second very messy although successful.

So that's same car, same track, same day, same opponent. A comparison can't get much better than that.

 

Pretty much all drivers in F1 have raw speed. They wouldn't be there otherwise. The ones that can optimize it are rewarded by higher grid positions.

But during the race, passing and errors will be the main difference.

One that consistently out-qualifies his team mate on a clear tack, is a fast driver.

One that qualifies lower and finishes the race on top, by passing, is a good racer.

Actually THINKING during the race, or race-craft, is underrated by many fans.

Edited by metz, 18 January 2015 - 16:33.

[jimmonson]

Aditya-now :

 

 

  "I cannot imagine a Fangio, Moss, Clark, Stewart or Lauda pulling such stunts. I cannot even imagine a Hamilton or Alonso pulling such stunts. But are they greater than Prost, Senna and Schumacher because of it?"  

 

 Yes they are . Moss never won the Championship , but he could have done had he not spoken up for Mike Hawthorn , an act which ultimately cost Moss the title by a single point . But Moss's integrity still makes him stand tall - taller than any champion who resorts to foul play . Its sad that  some fans think it acceptable to resort to cheating to win . It's as though they would support a sprinter who takes performance enhancing drugs in order to win , simply because it makes him the winner !

Edited by jimmonson, 18 January 2015 - 18:04.

[Collombin]

Meh, I don't rate Moss ahead of Schumi or Prost because of his integrity. I do so because of his ability.

[George Costanza]

Mika was number 2, but only Schumi was a top driver during his era (1994-2001)

 

Vettel's era involves - Alonso, Lewis, Jenson and D.R. 

 

MIka's main rivals for the number 2 spot were Hill, Frentzen and J.V. All solid drivers, but were they any better than say Hulk, Kimi and Rosberg? The depth in talent in Vettel's era, is deeper than it was in Mika's era. 

 

Vettel has had 2 weak/average years (2012 and 2014). Mika was a bit more inconsistent. Mika had weak/average years in 1997, 1999 and 2001 (although he did have a lot of bad fortune in those years, especially 2001). I would say there is a serious argument that Seb is a better driver than Mika, or at least his equivalent. 

 

Also, Seb still has a long way to go. My opinion on him is far from fixed. 

 

Mika would have also been a 3 time WDC easy (IMO, his 2000 season was flawless, even better than 1998, I thought Schumacher drove better in 1998 given his car). 1998 and 2000 showed what Mika was really made of. I am a Schumacher fan, everyone knows that, but if Mika finished at Indy in 2000, I think he would have been the world champion that year. Sepang 2000 was a Ferrari show, but the pressure was all off Miichael and Ferrari, if the pressure was on like it was in Japan, who knows....

 

Or if Mika won Japan 2000, Sepang would have been one heck of a fight...

Edited by George Costanza, 18 January 2015 - 18:16.

[sopa]

About those specific Hakkinen years.

 

I personally think Mika was more "on it" in 1998 and 1999 than 2000. In 2000 he had an average patch in early-to mid-season, where he was trailing Coulthard. He actually didn't overtake Coulthard until the second half of the championship. I think 1998 was Mika's best season. In 1999 he was very fast as well, almost all the time on pole position and ahead of Coulthard. The main let-down of 1999 were mistakes, like at Imola and Monza. But in terms of speed he was on top of his game. Despite a spin I consider 1999 French Grand Prix one of Hakkinen's best drives, and possibly his best drive in wet conditions.

 

I think the "unluck" part applies well to 1997. Hakkinen retired from the lead on multiple occasions that year. In 2001 Hakkinen was indeed pretty average, regardless of reliability. He was trailing DC in many races and was shining only in a couple of race weekends, notably Spain, UK, USA.

 

Just my interpretation.

[George Costanza]

About those specific Hakkinen years.

 

I personally think Mika was more "on it" in 1998 and 1999 than 2000. In 2000 he had an average patch in early-to mid-season, where he was trailing Coulthard. He actually didn't overtake Coulthard until the second half of the championship. I think 1998 was Mika's best season. In 1999 he was very fast as well, almost all the time on pole position and ahead of Coulthard. The main let-down of 1999 were mistakes, like at Imola and Monza. But in terms of speed he was on top of his game. Despite a spin I consider 1999 French Grand Prix one of Hakkinen's best drives, and possibly his best drive in wet conditions.

 

I think the "unluck" part applies well to 1997. Hakkinen retired from the lead on multiple occasions that year. In 2001 Hakkinen was indeed pretty average, regardless of reliability. He was trailing DC in many races and was shining only in a couple of race weekends, notably Spain, UK, USA.

 

Just my interpretation.

 

I would agree except that Michael was driving lights out in 1998 where his Ferrari was 2 sec sloower than anyone else at Oz and in Brazil. Given that he nearly won the championship in a slower car, says a heck of lot about Schumacher.

 

1999 was by far Mika's weakest season IMO.

 

2000 was the only season where roughly Ferrari and McLaren were on equal terms and Mika did a better job than most thought. If he won that year, than I'd say 2000 by a mile was his best.  Yes, DC had a great summer (French GP 2000 anyone? What a drive that was, gotta be DC best, he was unbelieveable). But the qualifying battles with Schumacher in 2000 were beautiful.... We don't see that much today because of the new format.

 

1997 was decent too, But 97 was the start of his "prime".

Edited by George Costanza, 18 January 2015 - 18:45.

[sopa]

I would agree except that Michael was driving lights out in 1998 where his Ferrari was 2 sec sloower than anyone else at Oz and in Brazil. Given that he nearly won the championship in a slower car, says a heck of lot about Schumacher.

 

1999 was by far Mika's weakest season IMO.

 

2000 was the only season where roughly Ferrari and McLaren were on equal terms and Mika did a better job than most thought. If he won that year, than I'd say 2000 by a mile was his best.

 

1997 was decent too, But 97 was the start of his "prime".

 

Well yeah. In terms of speed it is a close call between several seasons. His 1999 let-down were mistakes, while 2000 was possibly the most mature Hakkinen's campaign with least amount of driver errors over a full season.

 

Regarding Hakkinen's prime form, I personally think his 1994 was very impressive too, taking lots of podiums in the unreliable McLaren-Peugeot. And he left Brundle properly behind him to the extent that it prompted comparisons between Hakkinen and Schumacher, and their relative performance to Brundle.

[sennafan24]

Yeah, even if lady luck was not on his side, 2001 was the year where Mika's pace dropped. Mika claims he was burned out. I have always rated 1998 as his best year. 2000 is a close second.

 

1999 is a horrible season to examine in terms of driver performance. 

 

 

1997 was decent too, But 97 was the start of his "prime".

 

I think Mika was always a tad inconsistent. People forget Mika's 1994 was really strong. Dominated Brundle in qualifying, and got the better of him in race trim. Mika just had years which were a bit rough (which I mentioned)

 

My recollection of 1997 is not the best, but I seem to recall him and D.C were pretty even that year, even if the luck drifted D.C's way. 

 

[George Costanza]

But I will say this about DC.... DC summer run in 2000 was quite fun to watch. When he was on it, he can beat anyone, even Mika and Schumacher. The 2000 French Grand Prix was an absolute prime example of how good DC can be.

 

 

https://www.youtube....VEOVQ_o5b78Z-Ew         How he beat Schumacher,  Mika and Rubens at the French GP of 2000.

 

Watch that video...

Edited by George Costanza, 18 January 2015 - 18:52.

[sopa]

My recollection of 1997 is not the best, but I seem to recall him and D.C were pretty even that year, even if the luck drifted D.C's way. 

 

Generally speaking Coulthard seemed the better of the two in the first half of the season, and Hakkinen better in the second half. McLaren's reliability was pretty horrific that year, so it makes it a bit tough to compare and "re-calculate" all the points.

[sopa]

I cannot imagine a Fangio, Moss, Clark, Stewart or Lauda pulling such stunts. I cannot even imagine a Hamilton or Alonso pulling such stunts. But are they greater than Prost, Senna and Schumacher because of it?

 

Well, depends what we rate. If we rate driving skills and ability to get as good results and making as good career as possible, which this thread seems to be largely based on, then not.

 

But "greatness" is a very vague concept and open to interpretation. If greatness also includes personality and basically being a good example and inspiration to children and people in general all around the world, then I am afraid we need to include "antics" as well.

[aditya-now]

Monaco 04 was simply Jarno Trulli's day. I don't think Fred would have won that anyway.

 

As for the unforced errors, Fred is probablty the best at not making those errors.

 

That's another element in placing drivers hierarchically: sometimes it is just their day: Panis Monaco 1996, David Coulthard France 2000, Jarno Trulli Monaco 2004. The driver is untouchable on that given day and you can see it on the outset, right on the starting grid. And yes, that includes holding his car together, while other drivers cars collapse. It is an energy around the driver that makes him seemingly invincible.

 

The secret to the real top drivers is, that they are in this supreme state much more often than their mere mortal peers. Take Schumacher or Alonso clocking in one super race after the other - you get used to expecting them to be in the zone all the time.

[aditya-now]

Well, depends what we rate. If we rate driving skills and ability to get as good results and making as good career as possible, which this thread seems to be largely based on, then not.

 

But "greatness" is a very vague concept and open to interpretation. If greatness also includes personality and basically being a good example and inspiration to children and people in general all around the world, then I am afraid we need to include "antics" as well.

 

You may have missed my point: the drivers were all children of their time. In the 50s and 60s drivers used to be in general "gentleman drivers", so you wouldn't have expected Prost/Senna/Schumacher-like behaviour from them. In the 70s, when there was still a certain degree of gentleman driving around, the cars were also unsafe enough that no one would have dared to go about ramming their opponents (unless in bad movies).

 

With the advent of the 80s and 90s this changed and, cars being much safer, it became possible to show such antics. The question is rather: are we able to imagine a 80s or 90s version of Fangio, Clark or Moss? Or will we be always influenced how they really were in their own time?

 

Come the 2000s and the FIA regulating more and more, with in-race-penalties becoming much more frequent: now no driver would get away with such antics anymore - or be disqualified and receive race bans consequently. You would never see Alonso voluntarily going for crashes, and the period in which Hamilton and Massa routinously crashed together was remarkable (also in terms of them picking up no penalites).

 

So the "driving ethics" is very much influenced by the time the drivers (even the greats) were racing in. Thus not as much a factor in placing drivers hierarchically as, say, 1. outright speed (qualifying), 2. lack of unforced errors and 3. overtaking cabability. And, yes, as I said above, 4. to be in the zone more time and more consistently than the others.

 

That's btw what we saw lately about Kimi and Seb - they were rarely "in the zone", whatever the reasons.

Edited by aditya-now, 19 January 2015 - 09:48.

[RSNS]

Driver's opinion's about past drivers are really not to be taken into account. I recall Alonso's surprise when he learnt that there were F1 races in the old Ring...

And, of course, their opinion on their colleagues is often tainted by dislike and rivalry. But at least the saw them race.

[anneomoly]

I think there comes a point where a driver can only have so many off years before he can no longer be considered top level (top being the drivers who can be genuinely competitive with one another year in year out?).

 

In Raikkonen's case, I feel he underperformed and got outpointed at Ferrari against a teammate in Massa (who got dusted by what I think are top drivers -Schumacher/Alonso) who is generally regarded as good but not great, and 2014 exposed just how weak he can be when things aren't to his liking. These things compounded together seem to suggest in my mind that Kimi isn't a truly top driver. Yes he may be mega quick when things are to his liking, but it takes more than that to be a top driver in my eyes.

 

Vettel on the other hand still has a lot of time to prove himself, and with only one real off year you could say, he still has a long time to build his reputation back up.

 

 

All signs point to yes at this point, but time will tell, and unfortunately having such a ripe teammate will only bring less clarity to our judgements. One things clear to me - He surely can drive the wheels off a car, and his race craft is absolutely top notch. I remember how abysmal Vettel was in terms of racecraft/overtaking in his first few years at Red Bull (he has improved a good bit)...Dan on the other hand already looks like a seasoned vet, and is still miles ahead of Vettel in this area, with far less experience. Impressive...

 

Re the racecraft point... obviously series vary, and F1 is a lot more complex technically than the junior formulae, but I do wonder how much of a difference that makes to learning racecraft itself (surely surviving a junior formula race is sometimes an achievement in itself, after all, F1 drivers are meant to be better at avoiding each other than in F3)... Ricciardo has had 10 years of racing cars in various formulae including F1, Vettel has had 12. Vettel's 7th year of car racing was his 2009 world championship campaign, and Ricciardo's was a combined FR3.5/HRT... I'm not disputing that Ricciardo has better racecraft, but comparing Ricciardo's first year at RBR with Vettel's first years is harsh.

 

 

As for antics... on track antics are essentially a piece of racecraft. There's a line between daring/assertive and being dangerous, the best drivers dance around that line to get their own way, and sometimes they push too far. I mean, for me, watching a lot of Schumacher's antics as a kid, he went too far so in my mind got cast as the supervillain of the piece. But sometimes the only difference between a GOAT and a supervillain is whether you personally like them or not. (and very much the same with Senna - the Senna 'aura' - which includes his death - has as much to do with his reputation as his racecraft, surely.)

[sennafan24]

But sometimes the only difference between a GOAT and a supervillain is whether you personally like them or not. (and very much the same with Senna - the Senna 'aura' - which includes his death - has as much to do with his reputation as his racecraft, surely.)

It can work the other way.

 

Consider the "hipster" perspective on Senna. The term "Senna myth" is almost as popular as the "Senna aura" you alluded to.

 

Senna has become hugely popular in the last few years (mainly due to the film, and a strong following emerging on social media). When something (or in this case someone), becomes popular, some will go out of their way to be critical. (if you are not familiar with the term "hipster", be thankful)

 

Do not get me wrong. Those who mark Senna down on morals, are fine. As are those who rate Prost as being the better driver (I disagree, but I can appreciate the argument). These are the sort of fans who watched at the time, or viewed enough footage from Senna's career. But some will dismiss Senna just because he has become popular with the mainstream (the guy has more likes on Facebook than any other driver, and by a hefty margin) 

 

The "only seen as the best due to dying" theory, is a bit daft. Even before he died, many observers had deemed Senna to be one of the best F1 drivers ever. I have even seen some try and say that the only reason Senna is remembered as a great driver, is because he was good looking (he was a handsome devil, but that is beyond the point). It becomes a bit desperate. 

 

I tend to ignore arguments on social media regarding Senna's legacy. Both sides take things to the extreme.

[anneomoly]

It can work the other way.

 

Consider the "hipster" perspective on Senna. The term "Senna myth" is almost as popular as the "Senna aura" you alluded to.

 

Senna has become hugely popular in the last few years (mainly due to the film, and a strong following emerging on social media). When something (or in this case someone), becomes popular, some will go out of their way to be critical. (if you are not familiar with the term "hipster", be thankful)

 

Do not get me wrong. Those who mark Senna down on morals, are fine. As are those who rate Prost as being the better driver (I disagree, but I can appreciate the argument). These are the sort of fans who watched at the time, or viewed enough footage from Senna's career. But some will dismiss Senna just because he has become popular with the mainstream (the guy has more likes on Facebook than any other driver, and by a hefty margin) 

 

The "only seen as the best due to dying" theory, is a bit daft. Even before he died, many observers had deemed Senna to be one of the best F1 drivers ever. I have even seen some try and say that the only reason Senna is remembered as a great driver, is because he was good looking (he was a handsome devil, but that is beyond the point). It becomes a bit desperate. 

 

I tend to ignore arguments on social media regarding Senna's legacy. Both sides take things to the extreme.

 

It is a universally acknowledged truth that any strongly held opinion has an equal, opposing opinion. Especially on the internet. Aura might have been a poor choice of word, but I can't think of a better one. The whole racing skills/story/personality/looks/myth combination that has led to films and legendary status and, I guess, Facebook likes from people that probably aren't interested in racing but are drawn to the legend. Because he seems to extend beyond the reach of racing, so there has to be something more to it than just skill.

[Jimisgod]

Driver's opinion's about past drivers are really not to be taken into account. I recall Alonso's surprise when he learnt that there were F1 races in the old Ring...

And, of course, their opinion on their colleagues is often tainted by dislike and rivalry. But at least the saw them race.

No 17 (or 19) year old knows **** about anything, so even if Verstappen Jr. won some races next year it wouldn't change the fact he's probably been alive for less time than many fans have watched F1. I wouldn't judge Alonso for that though, he was driving to get into F1 not reading books.

[PassWind]

I use a simple formula. 

 

MSU (Make **** Up)

 

MSU suits my narrative and with it I can generally suspend all other aspects of reality.