Jump to content


Photo

Lauda - how good was he?


  • Please log in to reply
92 replies to this topic

#51 ex Rhodie racer

ex Rhodie racer
  • Member

  • 3,002 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 08 March 2007 - 20:43

I am totally astounded by the replies on this thread. Anyone who bases his judgement of a RACING driver´s quality on a statistic regarding pole positions, has missed the point totally.
The question here is how good a racing driver was Nikki Lauda. not how many pole positions he got or any other such nonsense. The answer is, he was good enough to win 3 world titles as well as numerous GP´s.
Lauda was a racing driver with a racers brain. His aim was to win races, not make lap records or pole positions, and at that he was one of the best. He was a thinking racer, a man who knew how and what to do in order to win races, and ultimately championships.
Only Fangio and Shumacher rank abouve him in my opinion.

Advertisement

#52 ovfi

ovfi
  • Member

  • 184 posts
  • Joined: October 06

Posted 08 March 2007 - 21:27

ex Rhodie racer,

How can you express your opinion, and expect that people take it respectfully in account , if you don't respect other's opinions?
The point here is how good was Lauda. To be good has many aspects, one of them is how fast he was, which demands a comparison, and I showed my work to add to the thread, I didn't expected such an aggressive and uneducated response as yours.

#53 Tmeranda

Tmeranda
  • Member

  • 605 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 08 March 2007 - 23:41

ex Rhodie racer,

to discount statistics in favor of your "own opinion" is nonsence. As I and others have proved, Nicki was the best of his times and one of the best overall, but nowhere near the top 10. Tell me how he was as good or better than the following:

Fangio
Ascari
Schumacker
Clark
Senna
Prost
Moss
Farina
Villeneuve
Stewart

He was great in winning 3 championships, but as the data shows the food chain was very shallow at the time.

#54 canon1753

canon1753
  • Member

  • 619 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 09 March 2007 - 00:33

Niki was one of the best racers of his era. Maybe the pool of talent wasn't as deep as at another time, but he was the dominant driver of 1974-76 and still won in 1977 when the Ferrari was not nearly as fast as it was previously. He dominated Reutemann in 1976-77 at Ferrari when Carlos was at his peak. He beat Prost in 1984 (barely, but .5 point is still a .5 point...) when Prost was probably at his best. His win at Zandvoort (it was on google video a few months ago) in 1985 was a great tactical victory, inspite of having the wrong tires on the car.

He left F1 (both times!) with a win or leading at the time of retirement. He was still in demand with Bernie to race for Brabham in 1986, but turned him down.

As mentioned, he outmaneuvered Enzo Ferrari, Bernie Ecclestone, and Ron Dennis on drivers contracts. THAT is worth something by itself.

Not bad for someone who never raced karts....

Top 10? Who knows. But a tough and fair racer and one of the best. And he has a folk song about him. "Niki Lauda has one ear."

#55 HDonaldCapps

HDonaldCapps
  • Member

  • 2,482 posts
  • Joined: April 05

Posted 09 March 2007 - 01:20

Originally posted by ex Rhodie racer
I am totally astounded by the replies on this thread. Anyone who bases his judgement of a RACING driver´s quality on a statistic regarding pole positions, has missed the point totally.
The question here is how good a racing driver was Nikki Lauda. not how many pole positions he got or any other such nonsense. The answer is, he was good enough to win 3 world titles as well as numerous GP´s.
Lauda was a racing driver with a racers brain. His aim was to win races, not make lap records or pole positions, and at that he was one of the best. He was a thinking racer, a man who knew how and what to do in order to win races, and ultimately championships.
Only Fangio and Shumacher rank abouve him in my opinion.


Originally posted by ovfi
ex Rhodie racer,

How can you express your opinion, and expect that people take it respectfully in account , if you don't respect other's opinions?
The point here is how good was Lauda. To be good has many aspects, one of them is how fast he was, which demands a comparison, and I showed my work to add to the thread, I didn't expected such an aggressive and uneducated response as yours.

Originally posted by Tmeranda
ex Rhodie racer,

to discount statistics in favor of your "own opinion" is nonsence. As I and others have proved, Nicki was the best of his times and one of the best overall, but nowhere near the top 10. Tell me how he was as good or better than the following:

Fangio
Ascari
Schumacker
Clark
Senna
Prost
Moss
Farina
Villeneuve
Stewart

He was great in winning 3 championships, but as the data shows the food chain was very shallow at the time.


Wow, the geeks are getting to be nasty-tempered little buggers and very quick with the handbags as well.....

#56 Twin Window

Twin Window
  • Nostalgia Host

  • 6,611 posts
  • Joined: May 04

Posted 09 March 2007 - 01:25

Originally posted by Tmeranda

...to discount statistics in favor of your "own opinion" is nonsence.

Why?


...Nicki...

Who?


Schumacker

Eh?


He was great in winning 3 championships

When?

#57 Hank the Deuce

Hank the Deuce
  • Member

  • 286 posts
  • Joined: April 04

Posted 09 March 2007 - 03:29

Ahh, Nicki Schumacker, unremembered 3-time champion in undisclosed disciplines or years... :lol:

A recently-dawned realisation of mine (and one which is probably more than self-evident to everyone else here :rolleyes: ) is the thought that personal remembrance and opinion is at least (if not twice) as important as statistics when considering what makes a "Great".

My elevated opinion of Lauda was gathered through the consideration of:

- 3 World Drivers' Champion titles
- 25 Grand Prix victories
- The bloody-mindedness to return so soon after Nurburgring 1976, and to take the title fight to the very last that year.
- The stones to not only negotiate an unheard-of deal with Bernie, but then to have the self-honesty to walk away from it upon realising that his heart wasn't truly in it
- The self-belief to ignore what he felt was opposition and resentment (rightly or wrongly it might be said) towards him within McLaren during the 1984-5 period, and fight on.
- the thought that anyone who polarises opinion in the way he does has got to be at least half-interesting

22 years since he left, he remains a personal hero.

#58 Twin Window

Twin Window
  • Nostalgia Host

  • 6,611 posts
  • Joined: May 04

Posted 09 March 2007 - 07:44

Originally posted by Hank the Deuce

...the thought that anyone who polarises opinion in the way he does has got to be at least half-interesting

22 years since he left, he remains a personal hero.

Agreed - twice! :up:

#59 Piston Broke

Piston Broke
  • Member

  • 123 posts
  • Joined: January 07

Posted 09 March 2007 - 07:59

Originally posted by Twin Window
Agreed - twice! :up:


Thrice. :cool: :D

....and he writes a bloody good book to boot.


And there was me thinking I might have done the wrong thing adding my thoughts and recalling a long lost thread that had slept for 18 months. :confused:

Advertisement

#60 ex Rhodie racer

ex Rhodie racer
  • Member

  • 3,002 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 09 March 2007 - 08:35

Originally posted by HDonaldCapps




Wow, the geeks are getting to be nasty-tempered little buggers and very quick with the handbags as well.....


:rotfl: Very funny indeed. :rotfl:

#61 ex Rhodie racer

ex Rhodie racer
  • Member

  • 3,002 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 09 March 2007 - 09:42

BTW. I meant to mention. No offense was intended in my original post, and I am a little suprised any was taken. The problem with statistics, is that one can compile them to suit one´s own opinions.
Take this stat for example. If my feet are in the oven and my head in the freezer, statistically speaking, my overall body temp should be just about right. :lol:

#62 ovfi

ovfi
  • Member

  • 184 posts
  • Joined: October 06

Posted 09 March 2007 - 16:12

ex Rhodie racer

Apologies, I misunderstood your terms and intentions. :blush:
But, if your feet are in the oven and your head in the freezer, statistically speaking, your overall body temperature has no significance, because of the high standard deviation. Perhaps you can get a pneumonia. :lol:
Turning back to the point, Lauda is one of my heroes too, undoubtedly between the greatest champions of all times. Statistically we could know how good he was among the champions of all times, working on to have the best significant results, but I give up, I don't want to polemize, my intention was only to contribute. :wave:

#63 ex Rhodie racer

ex Rhodie racer
  • Member

  • 3,002 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 09 March 2007 - 16:45

Originally posted by ovfi
ex Rhodie racer

Apologies, I misunderstood your terms and intentions. :blush:
But, if your feet are in the oven and your head in the freezer, statistically speaking, your overall body temperature has no significance, because of the high standard deviation. Perhaps you can get a pneumonia. :lol:
Turning back to the point, Lauda is one of my heroes too, undoubtedly between the greatest champions of all times. Statistically we could know how good he was among the champions of all times, working on to have the best significant results, but I give up, I don't want to polemize, my intention was only to contribute. :wave:


My dear fellow. There is no need to apologise. It´s all in good fun :)

#64 Rosemayer

Rosemayer
  • Member

  • 1,253 posts
  • Joined: April 04

Posted 09 March 2007 - 16:49

This just proves you cannot compare drivers of different eras or years.Just take 1967 4 world champions and 3 future world champions on the same grid find that combination in any other year or era. :confused:

#65 Piston Broke

Piston Broke
  • Member

  • 123 posts
  • Joined: January 07

Posted 09 March 2007 - 17:29

Or in ovfi speak, they are 'poles' apart! :eek: (no malice intended ovfi ;) )

#66 ovfi

ovfi
  • Member

  • 184 posts
  • Joined: October 06

Posted 09 March 2007 - 17:36

Piston Broke, you are a wise man. :smoking:

#67 HDonaldCapps

HDonaldCapps
  • Member

  • 2,482 posts
  • Joined: April 05

Posted 10 March 2007 - 04:24

I think that the comment that "D" made....

Ultimately you may come up with a formula that considers all of the following: wins, championships, championship placings, poles, fastest laps, number of races in a season, head to head performances against team mates, number of races, number of seasons, etc etc.

The funny thing is that the same names will make up the top of any list, albeit in a slightly different order, no matter what method you use to evaluate the statistics. Cream always rises to the top.


But to return to the main question: "Lauda - how good was he?"

Better than Ottoro Volontorio, not as good as Fangio.


....balanced against this comment.....

to discount statistics in favor of your "own opinion" is nonsence.


.....makes me wonder a great deal about the way things might be headed.

I will cheerfully discount statistics until the cows come home and leave again because I think that my opinion doesn't have mean anything to anybody but me.

While I can accept the value of statistics in relatively static sports -- baseball being the primary one, to accept that a statistical view is the only way to approach a question such as "Lauda - how good was he?" sticks on my craw. Given the recent stagnation and homogenization in formula one, perhaps there is some worth to modern statistics, even if that worth is not all that much.

I don't think it really matters one damn bit to more than a few of us -- okay, me -- whether or not the statistics put Lauda in the Top Ten or The Bottom Ten or how deep or shallow the gene pool was during his time. I liked Lauda even though I probably shouldn't have given his rather cool, calculating approach to racing. Anyone who when asked about the line around the Monte Carlo circuit who could answer that he just followed the black line around the course has got to be a rather extraordinary person. I just liked the guy -- so all the stats one way or the other really don't meant diddly-**** to me.

There seems to be an inbalance in the amount of time spent placing folks on what seems to be an endless parade of lists and actually considering them within the context of their times or simply as themselves. I am obviously not a fan of a statistical approach to racing or this obsessive urge to rank order everything.

#68 LaRascasse

LaRascasse
  • Member

  • 51 posts
  • Joined: December 05

Posted 10 March 2007 - 08:36

Lauda? You mean the guy that was World Champion thrice? Yeah. I would say he was pretty damn good.

He was the benchmark which all others could not reach in a least three different seasons, and would have probably won the Championship in '76 had it not been for his crash (this is not to take anything away from Hunt).

And, speaking of his crash, can you imagine the fortitude and BALLS it took to get back into the car as soon as he did afterwards. The guy was putting his helmet on over open, seeping burns.

#69 zakeriath

zakeriath
  • Member

  • 707 posts
  • Joined: October 05

Posted 10 March 2007 - 09:49

Lauda, was and will always be my favourite driver. He was the first F1 driver I saw live, bringing his 312t around Sunset, the image that remains in my mind of the car will never be forgotten.

He had a wicked sense of humor even back in 77, In the press at the time it was reported that Hunt & Lauda were these big enemies, yet here they were on Lauda`s birthday with Hunt singing happy birthday to him, both telling jokes and enjoying each others company. I felt that I was in on some big secret.

Doesn`t 3 world championships count??

And name one other F1 driver with his own you tube songs






http://www.youtube.c...related&search=




So sod statistics I think he`s great, and you can only beat who you have around you at the time, ask Rocky

#70 Terry Walker

Terry Walker
  • Member

  • 3,005 posts
  • Joined: July 05

Posted 10 March 2007 - 10:09

He also had his own joke, too. In an Aussie racing magazine, a three panel strip showing two petrol heads, one drinking beer, one reading a magazine (so asterisks were in original)

"Who won the World Championship in 1977?"

"Lauda."

"I said, WHO WON THE WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP IN 1977?"

"LAUDA!"

(First guy mumbles to self, "F****** deaf ****!)

#71 sterling49

sterling49
  • Member

  • 10,917 posts
  • Joined: September 06

Posted 10 March 2007 - 10:40

Originally posted by LaRascasse
Lauda? You mean the guy that was World Champion thrice? Yeah. I would say he was pretty damn good.

He was the benchmark which all others could not reach in a least three different seasons, and would have probably won the Championship in '76 had it not been for his crash (this is not to take anything away from Hunt).

And, speaking of his crash, can you imagine the fortitude and BALLS it took to get back into the car as soon as he did afterwards. The guy was putting his helmet on over open, seeping burns.



Niki gets my vote, a no nonsense ( or "bullshit" as he would say) approach and so very talented and a sense of humour and acerbic wit that translated into the UK tongue so well, pity more of the modern day drivers are not like him, he rowed his own boat, or should I say, flew his own plane!

Sterling

#72 Huw Jadvantich

Huw Jadvantich
  • Member

  • 602 posts
  • Joined: July 04

Posted 10 March 2007 - 10:50

A World Championship (or three) is just a collection of statistics, possibly arrived by a different method depending on what years you choose to compare, and a particularly irrelevant statistic if the World Championship was decided at the last race.
Indeed a race win is an irrelevant statistic since the races could have been won over an arbritarly chosen number of laps (at least very different over the seasons) - the winner simply having been in the right place at the right time.
Why is top 10 so important? What about the top 11 or top 17?

However what the statistics do verify, and I believe there is a great deal of value (for those who care) in trying to work these things out in various different ways, is that the same names keep appearing at the top.
This means that we know that of those who were lucky enough to get into the right machinery at the right time, had the ability to pedal it better than their team mates (if they were lucky enough to have equal machinery).

Lauda became one of motor racings great characters, the sport is much richer for him having the self belief to borrow his way into it. I think he should be in every one's top 13 grand prix drivers.

#73 Piston Broke

Piston Broke
  • Member

  • 123 posts
  • Joined: January 07

Posted 10 March 2007 - 11:54

Originally posted by zakeriath
Lauda, was and will always be my favourite driver. He was the first F1 driver I saw live, bringing his 312t around Sunset, the image that remains in my mind of the car will never be forgotten.

He had a wicked sense of humor even back in 77, In the press at the time it was reported that Hunt & Lauda were these big enemies, yet here they were on Lauda`s birthday with Hunt singing happy birthday to him, both telling jokes and enjoying each others company. I felt that I was in on some big secret.

Doesn`t 3 world championships count??

And name one other F1 driver with his own you tube songs

Lauda and Hunt contrary to the myth were actually the very best of friends..... in his book "To Hell and Back"Niki describes Hunt as an 'open, honest to God pal.' In the early days they were actually flatmates in London.

As for songs, far better than the youtube clips posted George Harrison, an avid motor racing fan (who owned a McLaren F1 road car) wrote the song "Faster" as a tribute to Sir Jackie Stewart, Niki Lauda and Ronnie Peterson. Proceeds from its release went to the Gunnar Nilsson cancer charity.

#74 Bruno

Bruno
  • Member

  • 563 posts
  • Joined: June 06

Posted 10 March 2007 - 16:46

Originally posted by jcbc3
Nice sheet, Bruno. Just a couple of questions:


You have a points total in that sheet. Is that included giving Fangio ten for his 1st places as MSchumacher has gotten. I.e. a corected figure for the differences in points given through time?

Have you deducted the '97 points from Schumachers total?





exact, not points 1997 are not deduced

#75 giacomo

giacomo
  • Member

  • 6,977 posts
  • Joined: December 05

Posted 10 March 2007 - 18:57

Originally posted by Huw Jadvantich
A World Championship (or three) is just a collection of statistics, possibly arrived by a different method depending on what years you choose to compare, and a particularly irrelevant statistic if the World Championship was decided at the last race.
Indeed a race win is an irrelevant statistic since the races could have been won over an arbritarly chosen number of laps (at least very different over the seasons) - the winner simply having been in the right place at the right time.

I wonder what you are rating as being relevant, if even the race win should be irrelevant.

#76 zakeriath

zakeriath
  • Member

  • 707 posts
  • Joined: October 05

Posted 10 March 2007 - 19:18

Originally posted by Piston Broke


As for songs, far better than the youtube clips posted George Harrison, an avid motor racing fan (who owned a McLaren F1 road car) wrote the song "Faster" as a tribute to Sir Jackie Stewart, Niki Lauda and Ronnie Peterson. Proceeds from its release went to the Gunnar Nilsson cancer charity.


Yes, but the Austrians didn`t have an ear for music ;)

#77 john aston

john aston
  • Member

  • 2,685 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 10 March 2007 - 19:26

I have parked my handbag downstairs but I have to say that any set of (yaaawn ) statistics which places Lauda below either Villeneuve, D Hill or Mansell is wrong.End of. Applying the same soulless analysis to books or music would provide us with defintive proof that Jeffrey Archer is a better writer than , say Martin Amis or Richrd Ford and that Mariah Carey is a better artist than Jeff Buckley or Joni Mitchell.This sport is - or should be- about passion , not effing numbers.

#78 Tmeranda

Tmeranda
  • Member

  • 605 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 10 March 2007 - 20:04

Originally posted by Huw Jadvantich
[
...indeed a race win is an irrelevant statistic since the races could have been won over an arbritarly chosen number of laps (at least very different over the seasons) - the winner simply having been in the right place at the right time...

However what the statistics do verify, and I believe there is a great deal of value (for those who care) in trying to work these things out in various different ways, is that the same names keep appearing at the top.

This means that we know that of those who were lucky enough to get into the right machinery at the right time, had the ability to pedal it better than their team mates (if they were lucky enough to have equal machinery).

Lauda became one of motor racings great characters, the sport is much richer for him having the self belief to borrow his way into it. I think he should be in every one's top 13 grand prix drivers. [/B]


Some very good points. However since race distance is prdeterimed in most cases beign first at the end is not always pure random, it is called race startegy. Of course some races do stop before their predetermined distance due to some outside factors and the winner could be luck. However the number of races stopped short or long (ie in Nascar) are a very small minority and not enough to change the overall picture.

You are very right in the same names always rising to the top no matter how you rank things. The top 10 list in race winners as a percentage of starts looks very much like the top 10 in poles, in podiums, in fastest laps, and in points scored. In all only 13 drivers get into the top 10 in any of these 5 measurments. Almost all of these 13 rank in the top 10 in almost all five ratings. 5 drivers appear in the top 10 in ALL of these 5 catagories.

The Mr. Lauda under discussion appeared in the top 10 in these 5 catagories exactly 0 times.

Lastly you have a great point in how drivers do against their team mates. I will try to reorder my data base to investiage this, however it won't be easy as the team lineup changed so offten. However it is common knowledge that certain team mates were always given better treatment then others. Clark's 2nd never had equal equipment. Same can be said about almost all the greats.

#79 D-Type

D-Type
  • Member

  • 9,699 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 10 March 2007 - 21:42

Originally posted by Tmeranda


~ Clark's 2nd never had equal equipment. Same can be said about almost all the greats.

I think this is only true in the sense that the number 1 had first choice of the available equipment. What is truer is to say taht the greats made better use of the equipment they had, After all, in essence isn't that what made them great?

Advertisement

#80 HDonaldCapps

HDonaldCapps
  • Member

  • 2,482 posts
  • Joined: April 05

Posted 11 March 2007 - 02:48

"Clark's 2nd never had equal equipment." The word 'never' is always a dangerous word to toss about, so could you please prove this statement to be accurate? Certainly this should not even be a challenge for you, I would assume.

"This sport is - or should be- about passion , not effing numbers." 'Passion' can be about as blind and stupid as the GAA (Great Australian Adjective) numbers.

#81 dretceterini

dretceterini
  • Member

  • 2,991 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 11 March 2007 - 05:04

A lot of people consider Nuvolari the best ever, yet when it comes to statistics, he is pretty much an also ran compared to the likes of Fangio. IMO, statics only play a part in deciding who was the best ever. I think the reason taht a lot of people rank Lauda so high is that they never saw or do not know much about drivers like Wimille, Varzi, and many others. Still, I think Lauda is in the top 25...

#82 Tmeranda

Tmeranda
  • Member

  • 605 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 11 March 2007 - 15:40

Originally posted by D-Type
I think this is only true in the sense that the number 1 had first choice of the available equipment. What is truer is to say taht the greats made better use of the equipment they had, After all, in essence isn't that what made them great?


Couldn't agree with you more. I was not saying Clark scored so high because he always had better equipment. I was saying he had better equipment because he was almost always better than his team mate. It's only natural for a team to put its best equipment in the hads of those who can do the most with it. I remember the first time the Lotus Ford ran at the Milwaukee Mile, Ford only had one set of proper carbs for the two car team. Jimmy got the right ones and won the race, Dan Gurney, his team mate, got the wrong carbs and didn't win. What else could Lotus do?

#83 Tmeranda

Tmeranda
  • Member

  • 605 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 11 March 2007 - 17:35

Originally posted by D-Type
I think this is only true in the sense that the number 1 had first choice of the available equipment. What is truer is to say taht the greats made better use of the equipment they had, After all, in essence isn't that what made them great?


Couldn't agree with you more. I was not saying Clark scored so high because he always had better equipment. I was saying he had better equipment because he was almost always better than his team mate. It's only natural for a team to put its best equipment in the hads of those who can do the most with it. I remember the first time the Lotus Ford ran at the Milwaukee Mile, Ford only had one set of proper carbs for the two car team. Jimmy got the right ones and won the race, Dan Gurney, his team mate, got the wrong carbs and didn't win. What else could Lotus do?

#84 ex Rhodie racer

ex Rhodie racer
  • Member

  • 3,002 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 11 March 2007 - 18:20

In 1962 I attended a meeting that was to become the saddest event of my life. My friend and fellow countryman, Gary Hocking, or Sox as we knew him, lost his life that weekend in a tragic accident while challenging Clark for pole position for the Natal GP at Westmede in South Africa, a non championship race which was part of the Springbok series. Jimmy´s team mate at the time was Trevor Taylor, and he went on to win the race. At the time I was tremendously impressed with his ability, and i really thought Colin Chapmen had just discovered another "Jim Clark". Maybe someone on here can tell us why TT never rose to the top. Did it have something to do with being Clark´s team mate and getting second hand treatment? I don´t know.
What I do know, is that the young man impressed me tremendously and I really thought he would become a major force in F1. He never did. Can anyone offer any reason why?

#85 Tmeranda

Tmeranda
  • Member

  • 605 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 11 March 2007 - 18:44

I just found the most amazing website for those of you, like me, who like to compare driver against driver. It’s called 4mula1.ro, and it has a data base of every driver who has raced F1 since 1950. If the drivers were contemporary it will show the results for all the races they competed against each other. If team mates is shows the results while they were on the same team.

#86 Hank the Deuce

Hank the Deuce
  • Member

  • 286 posts
  • Joined: April 04

Posted 12 March 2007 - 11:47

Originally posted by Tmeranda
I just found the most amazing website for those of you, like me, who like to compare driver against driver. It’s called 4mula1.ro, and it has a data base of every driver who has raced F1 since 1950. If the drivers were contemporary it will show the results for all the races they competed against each other. If team mates is shows the results while they were on the same team.

Interesting site, that... can see it starting more arguments than it resolves (try comparing Fangio to Schumacher or Andretti and Peterson, or Jones and Villeneuve, or Gilles and Ronnie Senna and Prost ;) )... but I digress.

I think you'd have to agree that statistcs don't tell the hero stories... which often end in vainglorious defeat anyway... in this case, the badly-burnt man who came back to the sport which nearly killed him less than two months previous, whose team weren't quite sure what to make of a guy who was so disfigured, and yet who went about it like nothing had happened... who defied the wishes of his team by pulling out of a treacherous final race of the year, pretty much sealing his defeat in the championship... and who took out the title again the next year, seemingly just to spite them all...

#87 GrumpyOldMan

GrumpyOldMan
  • Member

  • 98 posts
  • Joined: July 11

Posted 13 August 2011 - 17:58

How good was Lauda?

Bloody good!

By the time he landed a competitive F1 drive (in 1974), the benchmark (Stewart) had retired, so we can only compare him at this stage against the "best of the rest". But since these included Peterson, Fittipaldi, Regazzoni & Hunt and he was at least as quick as any of them, then we can conclude that Lauda was very quick.

Maybe the Nurburgring accident took the absolute edge off his ultimate speed - but let's face it, 99.9% of people wouldn't even look at an F1 car after an accident like that. To climb back into one 40 odd days later (and to STILL be competitive!) defies belief.

He then dominated Reutemann at Ferrari before his Brabham misadventures.

On his comeback, he drove alongside Watson (who was no slouch) and of course Prost (who was seriously quick). So in terms of speed, there wasn't anyone in his career who could be considered genuinely "quicker".

Allied to this is a degree of cunning and racecraft which have never been bettered (IMHO). His drive at Estoril in 84 to win his 3rd title was sublime. No-one could play mind games with Lauda, and the man himself exhibited no weaknesses.

A seriously underrated driver, and one of the greats.

#88 David McKinney

David McKinney
  • Member

  • 14,156 posts
  • Joined: November 00

Posted 13 August 2011 - 18:54

A seriously underrated driver

Really?


#89 stevewf1

stevewf1
  • Member

  • 3,259 posts
  • Joined: December 05

Posted 13 August 2011 - 19:27

I guess it depends on how a driver is "rated"...

Lauda may not have been the absolute quickest driver, but he was a good tester and let's not forget, he brought Ferrari back into the limelight in the '70s similar to the way Schumacher did in the 90s.

He certainly had resolve and determination. The way he came back after his accident in '76 (last rites), then quit the sport, came back to win a 3rd World Championship (Schumacher, anyone?) has to be one of the all-time remarkable achievements to me.

From time to time, I see folks complaining about Lauda's comments in the press but he, like Jackie Stewart, have truly earned their dues and can say anything they want. I have complete respect.


#90 jj2728

jj2728
  • Member

  • 2,966 posts
  • Joined: January 04

Posted 13 August 2011 - 20:24

First saw him at the'73 Canadian GP and thought, 'this guy is gonna be something'. Seems like I was right.

Edited by jj2728, 13 August 2011 - 20:25.


#91 Raido

Raido
  • Member

  • 72 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 13 August 2011 - 22:30

Lauda was very good but never in the category of Clark, Moss, Fangio or Senna.

I think that sums it up perfectly...


And yet... No.

Because if it was Lauda in his prime... (Three F1 World Championships speak volumes); if he had to race against *any* of these chaps mentioned: He would always have had a chance of beating these guys in a race and snatch the championship away from them.

All of them.

Not because he'd be necessarily be faster (although: 6:58 on the Ring speaks volumes, not to mention his earlier 9:58 in a Formula VEE (75 BHP)!), but because he would've been able to *calculate* his way past these guys.

Even when he raced against Prost, who was a bit faster in qualifying - small wonder since this was the only guy able overall to beat Senna, largely by studying Lauda's tactics! - he'd find a strategy to get the win anyway.
Add to that his innate ability to *develop* a race car into a winner - which a lot of racers can't do - and you have a very, very complete overall racing driver who definitely deserves a place in the top 10, imho.

(Besides, if talking only in terms of sheer driving ability: Rosemeyer may top *all* the ones on the abovementioned list, btw.)

Edited by Raido, 13 August 2011 - 22:30.


#92 GrumpyOldMan

GrumpyOldMan
  • Member

  • 98 posts
  • Joined: July 11

Posted 14 August 2011 - 09:43

Really?


Yes, really!!

Or to be more accurate, underrated by a substantial number of people (although the august members of TNF can be exempted!). For a man with 3 World Championships, he seems to be almost ignored when discussing great drivers.

If I had to choose a driver to drive for my life, I'd probably choose Lauda. Not the absolute outright speed of a Clark or a Fangio perhaps, but a combination of being a seriously quick driver in his own right combined with absolute self-belief and a supreme tactical ability would mean that he'd be right up there at the finish, regardless of the opposition.

#93 Hank the Deuce

Hank the Deuce
  • Member

  • 286 posts
  • Joined: April 04

Posted 16 August 2011 - 02:17

Not because he'd be necessarily be faster (although: 6:58 on the Ring speaks volumes, not to mention his earlier 9:58 in a Formula VEE (75 BHP)!), but because he would've been able to *calculate* his way past these guys.

I was always fascinated by the seemingly matter-of-fact remark in his memoirs (sadly lost to me through too many moves now), that he prepared and "permitted" himself to go that fast on that day in a manner that he never otherwise allowed before or since... given that nobody else approached it, it speaks loudly to me of his capacity for pure speed... that there was an surfeit of pace available should he be prepared or required to access it... but that the need for it was constantly weighed against the risk, a never-ending cycle of cost-benefit analysis. Having also been watching the "Piquet v Mansell" thread over the last couple of days, I found it interesting that Lauda genuine liked and admired Nelson greatly, on the reported basis of his seemingly carefree attitude to life among many things.