Your Top 10 Drivers of the "Noughties"

looking forward to the 50s

Yes, can't wait for all the expert insight awaiting us there!

A more interesting twist would be to do mid-decade to mid-decade, as it seems a bit unfair on drivers like Stewart whose peak straddled the turn of a decade. Piquet would probably do better on a poll that ended in 1985 too!

Yes, can't wait for all the expert insight awaiting us there!

A more interesting twist would be to do mid-decade to mid-decade, as it seems a bit unfair on drivers like Stewart whose peak straddled the turn of a decade. Piquet would probably do better on a poll that ended in 1985 too!

78-87 would suit Piquet best, I think. For Prost, 1981 -1990 and for Mansell 1985 -1994. Senna's career was just about a decade anyway.

In this thread, it is Mansell and Senna who are most discommoded by spanning two decades, even though three of these four won WDCs in the 90s, and the other won his final three GPs. But, if we are talking about ranking drivers based on the 1980s then Senna had 1 WDC and Mansell had none, compared to three each for Prost and Piquet. Prost was a genuine factor in the 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1988 and 1989 championships. Piquet was a factor in 1980, 1981, 1983, 1986 and 1987. Mansell and Senna had far fewer serious championship challenges in that decade.

Edit: I have observed before that Prost and Piquet are commonly viewed in terms of the time their careers overlapped those of Senna (in particular) and their rivalries with Mansell. In a sense, that lens is the mid-decade to mid-decade focus that you talk about, spanning 1985 - 1993. It, too, is distorting. Just looking at the 1980s is a refreshing change because it reverses the tables from the usual perspective.  

Edited by garoidb, 21 December 2019 - 12:03.

Prost was a genuine factor in the 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1988 and 1989 championships.

Arguably 1981 and 1982 as well. 7 points away in 1981 and 10 in 1982, and he led the most laps both years.

Yes, I would agree but didn't want to get into having to argue about it. In the other years he either won or was the main contender. In 81 and 82 he didn't make it to the final race decider, whereas two or three other drivers did. He was a strong factor in both years and with a bit of luck could easily have won. 

Edited by garoidb, 21 December 2019 - 14:18.

Didn't know where else to put this and didn't really want to create a new thread for it, but thought this recent interview with Bernie was quite interesting in how he rated drivers from the past. Doesn't even mention Senna, but has Prost as his number one and rates Piquet very highly, too (and Piquet's my favourite driver, which is why it caught my eye ).

Can't help but feel there's something missing from the interview, as he omits Senna and Schumacher, but thought it worth a mention

Ecclestone spent over half a century embroiled in F1, got to see most of the greatest drivers of all times, and shared his thoughts on who is the best of the best, “Alain Prost. He never got a lot of support from the team. They didn’t get all that [much] help from the pit wall, either.

“The lights went out and he was on his own. He had to look after the tyres on his own, the brakes too, and he was bloody quick. He nearly won two more championships. That would have been six but the figures are immaterial.”

“I’d also say Nelson [Piquet], who did well in a car that was OK. Stirling [Moss] you’d have to say yes to the top four. And [Juan Manuel] Fangio — he got the job done.

https://www.grandpri...k-for-hamilton/

Can't help but feel there's something missing from the interview, as he omits Senna and Schumacher, but thought it worth a mention

That he got 3rd in 2005 speakes volumes about his ability and quality. From 1991-2006 he was always a threat.

He was third only because of Indianapolis. If not for that race, he would have been fifth.

He was third only because of Indianapolis. If not for that race, he would have been fifth.

He was third only because of Indianapolis. If not for that race, he would have been fifth.

I mean to me it reads like he named his top 5 (Prost, Fangio, Moss, Piquet, Hamilton). While that wouldnt be my top 5 it also isnt exactly unusual to not have Senna or Schumacher in your 5 (though not having both seems very controversial lol)

it is, true, but those two were very much active when Bernie was around and it would seem unusual to include e.g. Piquet and not either of them.  I mean, I've always thought Piquet was seriously underrated but still, it's quite bold!

I mean to me it reads like he named his top 5 (Prost, Fangio, Moss, Piquet, Hamilton). While that wouldnt be my top 5 it also isnt exactly unusual to not have Senna or Schumacher in your 5 (though not having both seems very controversial lol)

but omitting both can be seen as something of a consistency too and could be related with one or more features of both these drivers which you won't find with the others....

He never should have been as close as he did to Montoya and Fisichella, excluding the indy win, If you look at the cars they had compared to the Ferrari.

To be fair though, Verstappen - for example - shouldnt have been close to Kimi and ahead of Bottas with the car he had in 2018. And we all agree that his first third of the season was utter ****. It sometimes says more about the other drivers' performances than your own if you finish ahead of them.

Personally it felt like 2005 was besides 2003 the only season where Barrichello didnt looked extremely much slower. Except of a period in the mid-season they were usually quite closely matched (from memory at least). But then again same applies here: it might say more about Rubens' progress than about Schumacher. He actually did quite well after he left Ferrari.

He never should have been as close as he did to Montoya and Fisichella, excluding the indy win, If you look at the cars they had compared to the Ferrari.

Montoya missed two races through injury, and didn't race at Indy along with the rest, so three less races than Schumacher. Also had a large slice of misfortune through being assaulted by an errant slick shod Williams at Spa, hung out to dry by his team in Canada to save Raikkonen, a lose drain cover in China ending his race, and being run off track by Villeneuve on the first lap in Japan, just after JV had cut the chicane.  A season that never really go going for him. 

To be fair though, Verstappen - for example - shouldnt have been close to Kimi and ahead of Bottas with the car he had in 2018. And we all agree that his first third of the season was utter shit. It sometimes says more about the other drivers' performances than your own if you finish ahead of them.

Personally it felt like 2005 was besides 2003 the only season where Barrichello didnt looked extremely much slower. Except of a period in the mid-season they were usually quite closely matched (from memory at least). But then again same applies here: it might say more about Rubens' progress than about Schumacher. He actually did quite well after he left Ferrari.

It's not very fashionable to say it but although Rubens never put a full season together he was a great driver who pulled out a few world-beating performances. The best Brazilian driver post-Senna.

To be fair though, Verstappen - for example - shouldnt have been close to Kimi and ahead of Bottas with the car he had in 2018. And we all agree that his first third of the season was utter ****. It sometimes says more about the other drivers' performances than your own if you finish ahead of them.

Personally it felt like 2005 was besides 2003 the only season where Barrichello didnt looked extremely much slower. Except of a period in the mid-season they were usually quite closely matched (from memory at least). But then again same applies here: it might say more about Rubens' progress than about Schumacher. He actually did quite well after he left Ferrari.

Rubens has always been very fast in specific tracks and conditions. Ex Ferrari engineer Mazzola said that Rubens was able to produce great lap times with a stable  car and in tracks that "generate understeer" ( There is a youtube video about this but unfortunately is just in italian without any eng subs ).

About the 2005 there isn't a lot to say. The car outside few races was slower by over 1s per lap plus both Kimi and Fernando were very quick.

Most overrated pass in history is it? Lol ;)

No that would go to "The pass" at Laguna Seca......

It's not very fashionable to say it but although Rubens never put a full season together he was a great driver who pulled out a few world-beating performances. The best Brazilian driver post-Senna.

I think quite a few of his 'world beating' performances were races gifted to him by (already assured of the WDC) Schumacher at the height of the Ferrari dominance tedium myself but agree that he was a very talented driver and a major upgrade on Irvine for Ferrari. 2003 and 2005 when the car wasn't as far ahead, suddenly Rubens seemed well able to outpace Michael on occasion and Silverstone and Suzuka 2003 were very good. 

Both are in the group of good not great and almost there, but I believe Massa to be better than Barrichello. He had a higher ceiling and seemed less reliant on positive feedback to race well.

Barrichello (and Webber who I put in the same category) had an annoying tendency to self pity.

IMO, Massa > Barrichello > Webber.

Edited by Atreiu, 16 March 2020 - 15:59.

Both are in the group of good not great and almost there, but I believe Massa to be better than Barrichello. He had a higher ceiling and seemed less reliant on positive feedback to race well.

 

Barrichello (and Webber who I put in the same category) had an annoying tendency to self pity.

 

IMO, Massa > Barrichello > Webber.

Where would you place Nick Heidfeld? Just out of curiosity. I always liked him, shame he never won a Grand Prix. I know he had the odd flukey podium, but he had some impressive and consistent years too.

What’s interesting about Heidfeld is that he was generally viewed as a bit of a solid, unspectacular pair of hands and Kubica as the next big rising star - yet Nick was so, so close to Kubica not just on consistency but often genuinely outpacing him particularly in 2007. Tells me that Heidfeld was underappreciated rather than anything. Based on seeing both in F3000 too, I don’t think he was any less impressive than Montoya there.

Where would you place Nick Heidfeld? Just out of curiosity. I always liked him, shame he never won a Grand Prix. I know he had the odd flukey podium, but he had some impressive and consistent years too.

I honestly don't know. I haven't given him much thought in a long time. His numbers against Kubica were fine.

From good connections I had back then, McLaren didn’t view Heidfeld as spectacular. There was perhaps more buzz around Zonta actually. If memory serves, Heidfeld was viewed to be some four tenths off Häkkinen.

Edited by messy, 18 March 2020 - 16:37.

I used to think Pizzonia would be huge.

I used to think Pizzonia would be huge.

I feel like I've read somewhere that Heidfeld and Pizzonia had some head-to-head competition for the second Williams seat in 2005. That or they chose between satisfying BMW or satisfying a sponsor.

I feel like I've read somewhere that Heidfeld and Pizzonia had some head-to-head competition for the second Williams seat in 2005. That or they chose between satisfying BMW or satisfying a sponsor.

How could they have known that?

I used to think Pizzonia would be huge.

Would be a good thread, if it hasn’t been done before. Drivers you thought would be huge, but never made it.

Junquera did have a good spell in CART mind, although he seemed to disappear into thin air after a few years. Lots of Brazilians ‘disappear’ off into their national tin top series, don’t they? Seems high profile over there but virtually unnoticed in Europe. Though I dunno if that applies to either Junquera or Pizzonia.

Please create it!

I always thought that Heidfeld to Prost was more of temporary solution to get him used to F1. Obviously their 2000 car turned out to be a total disaster. And then Kimi happened, even though Nick probably had a slightly better season in 2001.

I remember reading quite a lot about him around 98-2000, maybe not seen as a future star, but definitely as a very promising driver.

I definitely recall this happening.

That's because it did happen:

https://www.theguard....formulaone2005

Edited by Spillage, 23 March 2020 - 19:39.

I always thought that Heidfeld to Prost was more of temporary solution to get him used to F1. Obviously their 2000 car turned out to be a total disaster. And then Kimi happened, even though Nick probably had a slightly better season in 2001.
 
I remember reading quite a lot about him around 98-2000, maybe not seen as a future star, but definitely as a very promising driver.

I still don't know if the Mclaren was much better than i thought or some drivers really liked the Michelin tyres. Really can't explain why Kimi struggled so much against Massa at Ferrari.

For what it's worth I also think Massa was better than Barrichello. He had a peak that was higher and a few tracks he excelled at: he always seemed to go well in Bahrain, Turkey and Brazil. I also think the improved year-on-year before the accident; 2009 was maybe his best season before Hungary.

It's hard to say exactly why he never hit those heights again. Maybe it was the psychological after-effects of the crash, maybe it was the team coalescing around Alonso, maybe Alonso was just always a lot better than he was. But I would say that the Massa of 2007-2009 was the best Brazilian post-Senna.

I still don't know if the Mclaren was much better than i thought or some drivers really liked the Michelin tyres. Really can't explain why Kimi struggled so much against Massa at Ferrari.

I still don't know if the Mclaren was much better than i thought or some drivers really liked the Michelin tyres. Really can't explain why Kimi struggled so much against Massa at Ferrari.

I think it was the tyres.  Kimi has shown himself to be highly sensitive to car setup and behaviour and the tyres would seem an obvious one as they have such a big impact on both.  Kimi was a monster on Michelins but he never again reached the heights he did there.

I remember at the time (2007) Brundle commenting that even Alonso was finding the change from Michelins a bit of a challenge, although clearly he adapted much better than Kimi did.

I think it was the tyres.  Kimi has shown himself to be highly sensitive to car setup and behaviour and the tyres would seem an obvious one as they have such a big impact on both.  Kimi was a monster on Michelins but he never again reached the heights he did there.

 

I remember at the time (2007) Brundle commenting that even Alonso was finding the change from Michelins a bit of a challenge, although clearly he adapted much better than Kimi did.

I think I would pin it more specifically to saying he struggled in qualifying, probably tyre related. In that 2008 season he was plenty fast more often than not, although he made his share of errors too. 

I still don't know if the Mclaren was much better than i thought or some drivers really liked the Michelin tyres. Really can't explain why Kimi struggled so much against Massa at Ferrari.

Edited by Atreiu, 24 March 2020 - 15:52.

It looked like Kimi was the quickest driver for a short period of time. Maybe in 2005 he would beat Fernando if they were driving for McLaren. He just looked too good, and was clearly better than Juan Pablo, who himself was regarded as an extremely good driver.

It’s just strange that he had such a difficult time against Massa, because I would never think that Felipe is better than Montoya.
Very strange career.

It is odd, but makes (a bit) more sense if you go with the tyres idea.  Massa was used to the Bridgestones which were very different to the Michelins.  If Kimi was a one-trick pony (from a tyres perspective) this would explain it to a certain extent