497 replies to this topic

[PlatenGlass]

Damon Hill proved more in 1993 alone than any of the others you've mentioned.

Only if you look purely at results and ignore the car someone is driving.

[TheOne]

It's difficult to compare them all, too many variables.

 

Out of the current WDCs in the field, I think it's even harder.

 

I'd probably go for Alonso first. Dominant Renault but had to battle against an on-form Kimi and MS for at least one year. So, most deserving there for me.

 

It's a tough one between Hamilton and Vettel. While I rate Hamilton higher than Vettel, I think his last two titles at least were won with a more dominant car than Vettel ever had at Red Bull. That being said, for 3 of the 4 dominant Red Bull years, Seb's machinery was unbeatable too.

 

Kimi - probably should have had a WDC before 2007, but nevertheless still got the job done on the day. Mid-2000 form was incredible and I'll never forget those days.

 

Even if he wins the title, I could never place Rosberg alongside any of those guys. He's just not done it for me the last few years.

 

I'm surprised we just haven't included Max in this discussion anyway. He's obviously going to be a multiple WDC so why not put him in the top 3 now?

[PayasYouRace]

 

I'm surprised we just haven't included Max in this discussion anyway. He's obviously going to be a multiple WDC so why not put him in the top 3 now?

 

Because that would be highly presumptuous. Right now he's done about as much as Jean Alesi in his early days, so lets wait until (or if) he actually becomes world champion before putting him up there with the likes of Fangio, Clark and Senna.

[PayasYouRace]

I am NOT marking Hill (or any driver) up or down for his pre F1 career or his career after F1.
Only mentioned that he imho was lucky to get in such a car given his track record.

 

But was Damon really that lucky? He was Williams' test driver for years and the team had him as a known quantity. Getting promoted from test to race seat is not exactly a rare occurrence.

[Henri Greuter]

  For instance the single most undeserved world title in history is Piquet's in 1987.  Mansell bitchslapped him all season.  Twice as many wins and two of Piquet's three came after Mansell retired while ahead of him.  Autocourse's top 10 had Piquet in 5th overall and it's impossible to see how Kekinho would rank any higher as well.

 

 

IF(and(and(and("Piquet's"="Rosberg's",1987=2016,"Twice as many"="As many","Mansell"="Hamilton"))),"upcoming post by Ensign14","Justice according British patriotic rules taken place after all)

 

 

Henri

Edited by Henri Greuter, 21 November 2016 - 09:56.

[SophieB]

I'm surprised we just haven't included Max in this discussion anyway. He's obviously going to be a multiple WDC so why not put him in the top 3 now?

 

Hahaha, GOOD one.

[Collombin]

But that doesn't matter, what matters is the name on the pot! Doesn't it Stirling x

I know Stirling was utterly crushed to lose in 1958 as he felt, uncontroversially, that he was rather better than Hawthorn. However it must also be considered that the WDC was not the be all and end all in those days, as the top guys would also compete in countless non WDC races, sportscars etc. I'm not saying it wasn't the biggest prize on offer, simply that it wasn't the only thing that mattered to the extent of today. In later life Moss was very pleased not to have been a 1 time WDC, as it would have meant being remembered for one great season rather than one great career.

(And yes I know you were trolling me there!)

Edited by E.B., 21 November 2016 - 10:02.

[PlayboyRacer]

Only if you look purely at results and ignore the car someone is driving.

 

Really?

 

Who would have automatically done a better job than Damon Hill? 

 

Alesi? Berger? Barrichello? Brundle? Herbert? I'm not sold. No way.

 

Of that period only Hakkinen can lay any claim to possibly being a better candidate. 

Though Mika took his time to calm down and lay out his talent, he wasn't wholly convincing at that point either.

 

The amount of quality drivers who have failed to really make the most of a top car is lengthy. Yet if you listen to people here, you'd think its a magic carpet ride to swags of wins and championships.

 

It's ridiculous.

Edited by PlayboyRacer, 21 November 2016 - 10:15.

[PlayboyRacer]

You make it sound like beating Schumacher in those Benettons would have been an easy task, whereas it was the best driver of the time in essentially an equal car, give or take a little.

 

Its beginning to get hard to work out what your criteria actually are. It seems that you have no problem marking someone like Damon down for his outside of F1 performances, but you won't mark the likes of Surtees or Andretti up for theirs.

 

That's because there is no criteria. That much was obvious from the start.

 

Which is a shame....because done properly this could be a really interesting thread. But I think the joy the OP got by placing Villeneuve last overrode any thought given to creating a list with genuine criteria 

[Collombin]

The list itself is irrelevant and can never be correct to the satisfaction of all, or indeed anybody. The worthwhile bit is (sometimes) the discussions it prompts.

[PlayboyRacer]

Alesi was still seen as hot and he left Ferrari for Benetton. Berger was a proven race winner and in that car I think he could have surely been successful. Barrichello already showed some nice performances, and offcourse Herbert, Brundle, Blundell etc could have all been options, and I get that for a year or 2 a contract can be in the way but not for 3 years.

(The dutchguy in me scream Jos but I doubt both JV in the same team would have gone well)

 

As I said in the post above, none of those drivers were spectacular talents at that point. Not even consistent. None were worthy of that Williams drive over Damon Hill, a driver who'd done hard yards at Brabham and worked very, very hard as Williams test driver. 

 

Hill then excelled into a very good driver. Well superior to all the above mentioned.... In tough circumstances too it must be said.

Damon is quite underrated, its not fashionable to rate a driver who took the path he did. He had flaws yes, but on his day was brilliant and, his wet weather performances, he had some great ones. Which someone like Mika Hakkinen for instance can't lay claim to.

 

Which, again....is why if you applied 'proper criteria', you'd probably surprise yourself. Not dramatic changes....but you'd find some interesting results between comparing certain drivers. Particularly drivers from the same era.

 

As for Jos partnering Jacques at Williams, well firstly I doubt Jos could have paid Sir Frank to have him.....but it would have been good just to see the mess Jacques would have made of him! 

Edited by PlayboyRacer, 21 November 2016 - 10:41.

[byrkus]

Speaking of Hill in 1993, some things had to be put into conext. He led British GP from the start until his engine failed; Prost inherited the lead and won. In the next GP, in Hocknheim, Hill again led from start and retired three laps to go with a puncture. And then he won the next three GPs - Hungaroring, Spa and Monza.

 

In the end, Prost had 99 points, Hill had 69. But, if he had just a bit more luck, he would also have 20 points more from Silverstone & Germany, while Prost would have 8 less for two 2nds, instead of two wins. And the new situation would be 91:89 in Prost's favour. In wins, there'd be 5 each. And one is a freshly appointed 4-times WDC, while the other is basically a rookie in a first whole season.

 

And then someone says that he wasn't any good...?

[ensign14]

OK, I’ve decided to rank the championships in order.  And although this is a subjective list, I am, objectively, a genius, so this is an objectively genius list.  

 

1963: Clark: 10 races, 7 wins, in a car that (like the Ferrari 500) anyone could buy and run.  And the three he missed?  Lost Monaco because of a gearbox, lost Germany when the Climax lost a cylinder (yet still came 2nd), and finished 3rd in the US after starting dead last with a rickety engine that never cured itself in the race.  As close to perfection as driving can get.  And look at the competition.  Hill G, Surtees, Brabham, Gurney, McLaren, Surtees…

 

1965: Clark: won the first 6 races he was in, missed out on a seventh because he was winning the Indy 500.  Only race he didn’t deserve to win was Mexico and that was cos Honda put everything into it.  If anything, the competition in 1965 was even stronger than 1963; still the same names, but with more experience, Stewart blasting onto the scene, and Bandini, Rindt, Hulm and Siffert beginning to shine…

 

1988-9: Senna/Prost: what else can one do?  The two best drivers in the field in the same car, someone had to win, and by winning that someone had done something beyond the reach of mere mortals.  Both to the edge – and often over it…

 

1953: Ascari: even better than 1952 as Fangio was coming back to form.  Anyone could have bought a Ferrari 500 and challenge Ascari – and many did.  But Alberto was stellar yet again.  

 

1952: Ascari: a perfect season in a car anyone could buy and run – which many did.  Only reason why this is not at the top is the opposition was lacking.  No Fangio, the Mosses of this world were still coming along.  

 

1986: Prost: yes, he had to rely on Mansell’s burst tyre at the end of the season, but any title where someone wins it in not the best car has to be a tremendous achievement.  And Rosberg, who was obviously no slouch, was totally nowhere.

 

2008: Hamilton: another driver winning in a car that was not the best.  Hamilton had to take on Ferrari, the FIA and Mosley almost single-handedly as the promising Kovalainen wilted under the pressure.  Kova’s performance was where the hamstrung McLaren should have been.  Forget Massa’s Brazil heartbreak, he was only in with a sniff because of stewarding disgraces.

 

1982: Rosberg: a difficult year to gauge because really nobody deserved it.  Pironi ratted on Villeneuve, Villeneuve lost his rag, Prost picked up a win because of dubious disqualifications, everyone was much of a muchness.  But Rosberg did things with an aspro that should not have been possible.  Triumph of the will.

 

1995: Schumacher: I find it hard to gauge his titles because the field was generally weak and the rules generally bent.  I still have suspicions about the B195 but being generous and assuming its total legality this was a remarkable performance by dominating in not-the-best-car.

 

1973: Stewart: JYS at his peak and untouchable, despite the kind things said about Cevert he was forever following.  Compare Lotus where Fittipaldi and Peterson were taking points off each other.

 

1969: Stewart: basically a privateer team winning the title.  Stewart monstered a decent team-mate and out-thought the field at Monza to clinch it.

 

2015: Hamilton: ten wins to three when he clinched the title, then chillaxed.  Would have been 11-2 but for Mercedes’ stupid Monaco call.  Rosberg is no Barrichello.  This was a dismantling.  So Mercedes decided to split Hamilton’s side of the garage.  Ber-illiant.

 

2005-6: Alonso: the new tyre rules show up the difference in racing compared to sprinting.  So naturally the rules only last one year.  Fisi was like Emperor Galba.  Everyone assumed he would be brilliant given the chance, until he was given the chance.  Alonso showing just how much of a talent he is by handling the hitherto best – despite far less resource.  And then does it again.

 

1985: Prost: something of a coronation.  Very clearly the class of the field – just in time before Senna hit his stride.  Nobody could live with Alain.

 

1968: Hill G: by rights Team Lotus should have been finished after Clark’s death.  Hill pulled them together by sheer force of will and although he was not the fastest that year there can seldom have been a more traumatic title win.  With one conspicuous exception...

 

1998: Hakkinen: the Ferrari was very nearly on song – and Mika had only one win hitherto, in a McLaren that had not been a contender for a comparative age.  Brave run to the title.

 

1960: Brabham: can’t really argue with winning nearly every race.  And one which Sir Jack had bred to being as great as it was.  Again Moss doubly screwed himself – by changing to Lotus for both a worse car and a more broken one.  

 

1976: Hunt: the second-greatest title story, Mass was a decent, race-winning hand who had kept Emmo honest in 1975, but in 1976 he was not in the same league as Hunt.  Robbed of a win at Brands by politics and winning the title in a car fit for the knacker’s yard.  

 

1957: Fangio: winning the title in an antediluvian car.  The next year the 250Fs were nowhere.  Possibly a peak achievement for El Chueco.  The Ferraris to be fair were not brilliant – the more Enzo got away from their Lancia origins, the worse they got – but the Vanwalls were coming on strong.

 

1975: Lauda: to consider that Ferrari could not even podium 2 years before.  Lauda ended up there because a) his results hitherto meant he was not particularly in demand elsewhere and b) Ferrari’s results in the past few years meant nobody else was that bothered.  Yet Lauda and Forghieri with intelligence and will turned it around.  Class of the field in 1974, brought it home in 1975.

 

2010: Vettel: his first title is easily his best as he had to stare down Alonso in roughly equal equipment.  One wonders what would have happened though had Webber not fractured his shoulder at the sharp end of the season.  Afterwards Red Bull basically threw everything behind Vettel...  

 

1954: Fangio: not many have won a title in two cars.  The Mercs are difficult to gauge, they only won when they had brilliant drivers.  Did they get the brilliant drivers because they were brilliant cars?  Would have been interesting had Ascari not handicapped himself…

 

1978: Andretti: OK, it was fairly easy, but there was a reason for that – Andretti had stuck with Lotus through thin and had worked hard on the development.  And forget this thing about team orders allowing Andretti to beat Peterson.  Mad Ronald was usually miles and miles behind.

 

1972: Fittipaldi: the 72 was beginning to get a bit long in the tooth but was still a great car for the following year.   Dave Walker was a comingman until he managed to avoid the points entirely as Emmo was winning the title.  Stewart’s devotion to the almighty dollar cost him a chance at a repeat.

 

1955: Fangio: opposition-free year, Moss still learning his trade.

 

1971: Stewart: the Tyrrell was the class of an undistinguished field, and Cevert was too wet behind the ears to be consistent opposition.

 

1999: Hakkinen: would have been higher up had he beaten Schumacher to the crown.  Schumi’s accident meant that the main opposition was gone.  Irvine had to rely on gifts from Salo and the FIA to be even within a sniff of it.  Had Irvine stolen the championship this would have been last-but-one.

 

1983: Piquet: an exciting year with a powerful climax, but difficult to rate in isolation because of the suspicions about the BMW jungle juice.  Then again, did it really make that much difference?  The Ferrari was surely the class of the field, not many other cars could make both Tambay and Arnoux title contenders.  But Cheever had shown up well in 1982 and Prost utterly, utterly humiliated him in 1983, so…

 

1977: Lauda: again everyone else handicapped themselves.  McLaren couldn’t replace the M23, Brabham was stuck with the stupid engine, the Lotus was paradoxically too good, and the field was so thin Wolf could win on its debut.  

 

1980: Jones: another weak year and all sorts of legal shenanigans going on.  

 

1956: Fangio: like 1955, JMF had nobody really to contend with.  Collins was only close because of reliability.  Fangio poled every race.  

 

1951: Fangio: puts Farina into some context as, when a Ferrari came along to challenge the status quo, Farina was floundering.  One win for Farina after Fangio lost 15 minutes.  A great what-if is how good the Ferrari was compared to the ageing Alfa.  We never found out because the AIACR changed the formula to F2 to prevent a Ferrari domination.  Well, that worked.

 

1970: Rindt: yes, he marmelized a dispirited John Miles, but the 72 was the absolute bit of kit to have, with the World Champion without a car at the start of the year.  As proved when a rookie fresh out of FFord won the US GP in it.  I’m still not convinced by Rindt’s Monaco victory as he shouldn’t have been so bloody far behind in the first place.  Still have no idea why he ran Monza with no wings – there was nothing really to gain as he was so far ahead in the title race…

 

1962: Hill G: got lucky with Lotus reliability (again), but BRM was under massive pressure from the Owen Organisation to win races or that was it.  Graham was at his best under such pressures.

 

2014: Hamilton: made heavy weather of it against Rosberg, although he did an Incredible Hulk come the end of the season.  Basically the result of throwing away 2013.

 

1967: Hulme: an annus mirabilis for the Bear.  Brabham had reliability problems as he pushed the envelope, but Hulme had some brilliant races, Monaco in particular for a maiden win.

 

1966: Brabham: a brilliant mid-season run after the formula changed and only Sir Jack didn’t over-complicate things. One wonders whether the Repco solution was meant to be a barn-burner or whether it was just to keep going while he got something better.  But surely this was Surtees’ title without Dragoni being an utter tit.

 

1959: Brabham: basically Moss outsmarted himself with an Italian gearbox that was as reliable as the average Italian gearbox.  Had Stirling just stuck with a bog-standard Cooper he would have walked it, Sir Jack was behind him throughout.

 

2011-13: Vettel: Red Bull has basically forgotten about Webber and the rules militate against anyone who is not a midget.  Adrian Newey is at his finest and everyone else is floundering.

 

1979: Scheckter: not that brilliant, really, a bit of an accountant’s job of totting up the points.  Everyone else dropped the ball.  Ligier and Williams both coulda shoulda.  Difficult to see why Jody was better than Jones or Lafitte that year.

 

1990: Senna: really he should not have needed to barge Prost into the boonies at Suzuka as the Ferrari was still a work in progress.  Allowed himself to be out-psyched and had to resort to underhand tactics for a title that would have fallen into his lap anyway.

 

1992: Mansell: best car, confirmed B-lister for life as a team-mate, this was the least Mansell should have done.  

 

1996: Hill D: this is one of my favourite titles, but looking at it in the cold light of day – and with retrospect – it was closer than it should have been.  The Williams was the only car to have and JV a rookie so really Hill should have wrapped it up by Monza.  But then again at the time Villeneuve was seen as a stellar talent.  I wonder if he genuinely was though who then got so wrapped up on the dollars as to blunt his competitiveness.

 

1984: Lauda: had to use his brains because Prost was faster by some margin.  But even then Lauda had to rely on others’ failings to sneak the title by half-a-point.  E.g. Mansell at Portugal, Lauda had nothing for him other than better reliability.   It would have been fascinating to have seen Piquet in a more reliable car this year though…

 

1991: Senna: back to stellar Ferrari management again.  There was only one car to have and Senna had it.  When the best the opposition has manage to stymie themselves, it’s not that much effort to take the title.

 

2000-4: Schumacher: lumping these together because they all follow the same theme.  McLaren keep finding things to win, the FIA bans them.  Then Paul Morgan is killed and Coulthard is in a plane crash that is also fatal.  When the non-Ferrari teams finally get the secret in 2003, the FIA bans it again and hands two titles on a plate to Schumacher.  Too many of these years were two horse races, in which the second horse is ridden by a fatty, and then has a leg broken.

 

1964: Surtees: rightly he should have won the 1966 title, but as usual Ferrari management effed up.  Surtees deserved a title, but not 1964.  Only won at the death because team-mate Bandini launched himself at NGH in Mexico and then Clark broke down on the literal last lap.  Unconvincing.

 

1997: Villeneuve: a difficult one to rank because the Williams was still easily the class of the field – yet it took to the final race for JVi to win it.  Then again, Frentzen was meant to be as good as Schumacher, and he was marmelized…

 

1981: Piquet: racked up a load of decisive points early in the year when the Brabham was blatantly illegal.  Those points proved the difference.  Plus Reutemann psyched himself out.  Had Ligier a Cosworth, Jolly Jacques might have won it.  And had the South African GP been in the championship – it was a championship-class field – Carlos would have had it. 

 

2007: Raikkonen: the Ferrari was so much better than the field even Massa was winning regularly.  In fact Massa was so competitive with Kimi that it was down to Massa handing him a win that Kimi took the title.  I think I’d be embarrassed in those circumstances.  

 

1974: Fittipaldi: unconvincingly backed into a title with an almighty three race wins.  Hunt won twice as many with the same car when it was two years older.  Any year in which Regazzoni is a title threat has to be a pretty feeble one.

 

1958: Hawthorn: backed into it with a series of second places.  Only win came at a power circuit.  Had shared drives been allowed Moss would have walked it.  Had Spa been a lap longer too – and it was scheduled to be six longer than it actually ran – the title would have been Stirling’s.  And of course Mike relied on team orders.  But, then again, he was dying…

 

1950: Farina: there were only 3 cars worthy of the name, one of which was driven by a man in his fifties.  Title decided solely by who had the most engine failures.  6 races is not enough to determine a title.

 

2009: Button: Brawn finds a diffuser solution that is outlawed for everyone else.  So it’s a two horse race.  And the other horse is Barrichello.  

 

1993: Prost: the title that did the absolute least for the credibility of F1 as a racing series.  Someone can take a gap year, come back, waltz to the title and then eff off again.  And the superiority of the Williams in 1993 is shown by Donington, when, with the conditions acting as an equalizer, even a Jordan came within a gnat’s crotchet of beating them.  Senna the class of the field by miles; Prost struggling to beat a near-rookie Damon Hill far too often.  

 

1987: Piquet: with proper reliability the score would have been Mansell 8, Piquet 1.  And Piquet’s 1 came when Honda gave him the magic chip for Monza.  

 

1961: Hill P: regretfully almost at the bottom, because in F1 terms we have two journeymen (who had 1 dubious win between them before the year) who suddenly lucked into car that became great by default after literally every other entrant ballsed up.  Yet Phil won Le Mans repeatedly in an era when every driver worth their salt was in it.  So definitely a case where someone’s talent was obscured by the vagaries of Formula 1.  Would be as if Redman or Siffert had won the title.

 

1994: Schumacher: Cheaty McCheatface in a cheating car driving like a cheat to cheat his way to a cheated title.

 

*****

Now this is not ranking the drivers by ability; there is some element in some of the years, because Clark was such a great driver his championships came across via great seasons, but not in all.  Thinking about Fangio's titles for example underplays just how good JMF was over the piece - he starts by beating Ascari and ends by beating Moss, yet Ascari and Moss never really raced each other properly.  And Fangio was smart enough to get himself into the best car most of the time.  

[chunder27]

Again, it's tough here as this is a largely British forum and it can be pro Brit at times, but I like to think we are a fair lot, only a few get caught up in the nonsense tabloid crap that is pedalled to use by the media. And as for Verstappen fans...

 

Hence most people rating Alonso over Hamilton perhaps, in Spain I bet the vote would be totally one way, and for reasons over and above his racing ability!

 

Damon is a tough nut. I think he found something in himself a bit like a few have racing against Schumacher. Hakkinen certainly had to dig deep to win and I think Damon did too. The Benetton team were cheating like mad in 94 so he was up against it, and in 95 they used the same engines though the Williams was probably a better car.

 

To come back from what happened in 1994 to be so close against a team and driver that cheated their way to a title will always be a thing I remember vividly.  The look on Damon's face, the fake look of glee on Schumacher's. You can't hide those things.

 

He was up against Prost and did himself proud, obviously knowing the car and systems helped him enormously as it was all new to Alain, but he was still on the pace.

 

He was a decent bloke, largely unaffected by the usual F1 nonsense and a very worthy champion. Whether he ranks up there as one of the best is doubtful but of his time he was often faster than one who is regarded as one of the quickest ever.

[PlatenGlass]

Really?
 
Who would have automatically done a better job than Damon Hill? 
 
Alesi? Berger? Barrichello? Brundle? Herbert? I'm not sold. No way.
 
Of that period only Hakkinen can lay any claim to possibly being a better candidate. 
Though Mika took his time to calm down and lay out his talent, he wasn't wholly convincing at that point either.
 
The amount of quality drivers who have failed to really make the most of a top car is lengthy. Yet if you listen to people here, you'd think its a magic carpet ride to swags of wins and championships.
 
It's ridiculous.

I'm not saying anyone would have "automatically" done a better job than Hill, but I was questioning the assertion that Hill proved more in 1993 than the others ever did. To me, Berger proved more in his original Ferrari years than Hill ever did. I know his stock had fallen since, having spent those McLaren years alongside Senna, but had Senna survived to partner Hill over 1994, I don't think Hill would have come away with such a strong reputation either.

Certainly, being in the best car doesn't guarantee you wins and the championship, but the circumstances of having the best car really does matter. For example, being in the best car in the team run by Flavio Briatore and with Schumacher or Alonso as your team-mate is very different to having the best car overall over a run of four years, with five separate team-mates, and a truly dominant car for the final of these four years with a rookie team-mate.

[PlatenGlass]

But was Damon really that lucky? He was Williams' test driver for years and the team had him as a known quantity. Getting promoted from test to race seat is not exactly a rare occurrence.

Arguably he was lucky to be the test driver in the first place (considering what he'd achieved previously), and he was also the test driver at a time when there was a gap and not an obvious choice to fill it with.

Sure, there is the argument that he came good and was ultimately better than his pre-F1 results would lead you to believe, but this just leaves me questioning more the general meritocracy of the sport. If it happened with him, the chances are that there are many other people out there who could also have got the job done but never got the chance. Otherwise it's just a massive coincidence that Williams picked the best driver based on very little to begin with.

[PlatenGlass]

Speaking of Hill in 1993, some things had to be put into conext. He led British GP from the start until his engine failed; Prost inherited the lead and won. In the next GP, in Hocknheim, Hill again led from start and retired three laps to go with a puncture. And then he won the next three GPs - Hungaroring, Spa and Monza.
 
In the end, Prost had 99 points, Hill had 69. But, if he had just a bit more luck, he would also have 20 points more from Silverstone & Germany, while Prost would have 8 less for two 2nds, instead of two wins. And the new situation would be 91:89 in Prost's favour. In wins, there'd be 5 each. And one is a freshly appointed 4-times WDC, while the other is basically a rookie in a first whole season.
 
And then someone says that he wasn't any good...?

This is just looking at things from Hill's side though. Prost also had problems that haven't been taken into account. He was actually leading in Germany but got a 10 second stop/go penalty for Brundle spinning across the chicane (Prost then skipped the chicane to avoid a collision). At Spa, he overtook Prost through a better stop, and at Monza, Prost led until his engine went.

I didn't wake up this morning intending to bash Damon Hill by the way, but I think some people take things too far the other way!

[byrkus]

Don't get me wrong, I don't disagree. It's just that any given driver can only be compared to his own teammate. And Damon Hill had one hell of a teammate in '93, one of the best ever. And he proved himself to be just as capable as Prost, which was no mean feat. In fact, he had one of the best rookie season in modern history, compared only with Villeneuve in '96 and Hamilton in '07. And all of those became World Champions, which shows that it wasn't coincidental.

 

BTW, that Prost's penalty in Hockenheim was ridiculous. He had nowhere to go but around the chicane - and got penalized for that...

[sopa]

It is true that there weren't many drivers better than Hill in the mid-1990s. I do think Alesi's 1995 campaign was better than Hill's, but I am not sure he would have done better in 1996.

 

Still, it is not the matter of whether a number drivers would have done better than Hill, but that Hill got the opportunity, which others didn't... And Hill did not just get a chance for a single year, but he got 4 years in great cars and racked up 22 wins. Meanwhile number of drivers with comparable talent could dream of that...

Edited by sopa, 21 November 2016 - 16:14.

[piket]

Everyone surely loved Keke's wild and spectacular driving style. Prost was a much faster driver who managed to look much slower.

No arguments about your Prost statement from my side. I agree.

But what I wanted to say was that unlike with, for instance Gilles Villeneuve, with Keke you got equal amount of thrill, but never the bad side of it; crashes.

I can think of many Gilles crashes in just four years of his participation, yet apart from couple of clumsy contacts, Keke was always in control.

A car never looked more on the limit than in Keke's hands , yet it never really got away from him.
Kind of contradictory?

[Collombin]

True enough, in fact the only 2 Keke incidents that immediately spring to mind were spins in consecutive races, Mansell's first two wins actually. No doubt there were others I've forgotten but certainly not many.

Edited by E.B., 21 November 2016 - 17:05.

[piket]

True enough, in fact the only 2 Keke incidents that immediately spring to mind were spins in consecutive races, Mansell's first two wins actually. No doubt there were others I've forgotten but certainly not many.

Long Beach 83 sticks out for me. On that day he had the best car but he was pissed of because of Brazil GP penalty, got too anxious around Tambay and blew a certain win.

[piket]

I hardly said Stirling was not very good, merely that he never won the thing!

As for Villeneuve and Jody, all I recall reading is the team holding out a keep positions board, Gilles said after he knew Jody could have gone quicker as he knew he certainly could, but he stared at the back of that thing all day hoping it would break down!!

As for Imola, the lap times tell the story,k the same board was held out when Gilles was leading and the Renault's had gone, Pironi went in front a few times and the lap times dropped, Gilles went in front and they went up again to save fuel. he was duped pure and simple. There is no getting away from it.

Naieve maybe, but after some of the things he did earlier in the year defending Didier to the press after he had a huge crash in testing this is why he was so annoyed I think. He was a simple man and a man of another time, not the time he was racing in.

You see, I remember Gilles making a mistake under pressure from Pironi who was pushing hard entire race and board being shown when Didier was leading.

I wouldn't call it naivety from Gilles, Didier pretty much stayed on his tail the entire race showing intentions of winning the race.

I always felt both sides had plausible arguments. You can interpret lap times as Gilles in fuel problem, but Didier perhaps saved more beforehand.

Even the rest of the team stayed firmly divided on the issue. The meaning of the board was vague, Didi never signed a number 2 contract, and only pre race agreement was with the Renault boys ( conferm by Arnoux).

Kind of everyday teammate fight blown out of proportions by among others Nigel Roebuck.

l

[D28]

Ensign14:

1966: Brabham: a brilliant mid-season run after the formula changed and only Sir Jack didn’t over-complicate things. One wonders whether the Repco solution was meant to be a barn-burner or whether it was just to keep going while he got something better.  But surely this was Surtees’ title without Dragoni being an utter tit.

 

 

That may be conventional wisdom, but checking the data I'm not so sure Jack didn't have everyone covered. Ferrari was going through one of their chaotic periods losing Le Mans to Ford and suffering labour disputes. Surtees could match Jack most days on pace, but was the Ferrari reliable enough to make the difference?

 

At the time of his leaving, Surtees had 9 points. The next French GP Bandini set pole and FL but was not classified. But for the British GP, Ferrari sent no cars because of a metalworkers strike. One wonders what Surtees reaction would have been to this development.

The Dutch GP Bandini qualified 9th. finished 6. Germany he again finished 6. A full press for Monza saw Scarfiotti and Parkes 1 amd 2. Then for the American races they sent only 1 car, Jack having already clinched the title.

 

Bandini while not in Surtees league was an experienced and quick driver, I think he got most out of the car that was there. For sure Surtees would have had a better chance with Ferrari, but reliability would probably have been his let down. Jack had the absolute package for the transitional year and he would have been very hard to beat. And you cannot win a title by skipping races for whatever reason.

 

I agree with your other analysis. I think that Farina had the one good year in the dominant car and under achieved after.

Edited by D28, 21 November 2016 - 18:33.

[Oho]

... his wet weather performances, he had some great ones. Which someone like Mika Hakkinen for instance can't lay claim to.

 

Depends on what you define as great but with Schumacher he effectively lapped rest of the field at European GP or was it Luxemburg at Nürnburgring in 00. He would have but he decided not get involved with Irvine and Coulthard fighting for third when he got close to lapping them couple laps from the end.

Edited by Oho, 21 November 2016 - 18:46.

[PlatenGlass]

Depends on what you define as great but with Schumacher he effectively lapped rest of the field at European GP or was it Luxemburg at Nürnburgring in 00. He would have but he decided not get involved with Irvine and Coulthard fighting for third when he got close to lapping them couple laps from the end.

He was also unlucky not to win Silverstone 1998. He led for most of it but the safety car took away his lead just after he went through the gravel, presumably damaging his car slightly making it less effective.

[Marklar]

 

OK, I’ve decided to rank the championships in order.  And although this is a subjective list, I am, objectively, a genius, so this is an objectively genius list.  

 

[7th]

 

2008: Hamilton: another driver winning in a car that was not the best.  Hamilton had to take on Ferrari, the FIA and Mosley almost single-handedly as the promising Kovalainen wilted under the pressure.  Kova’s performance was where the hamstrung McLaren should have been.  Forget Massa’s Brazil heartbreak, he was only in with a sniff because of stewarding disgraces.

While I agree that the Ferrari was better that year and that the FIA's decisions were weird, you are slightly overrating this campaign. 2008 was easily among the championships with the lowest quality of the front runners in the last decade. Massa (urgh) sitting in the quickest car was the reason why Hamilton could win this championship without having the quickest car despite driving an for his standards pretty average season. It was a good campaign however. Often underrated, not by you though 

[ensign14]

Bandini while not in Surtees league was an experienced and quick driver, I think he got most out of the car that was there. For sure Surtees would have had a better chance with Ferrari, but reliability would probably have been his let down.

 

In the time they were together at Ferrari, and when they were both running at the finish, Bandini did not beat Surtees once.  On average Surtees was 2 places ahead.  OK, Mexico 1964 would have seen Bandini beat Surtees sans team orders, but once in two and a half years? 

[D28]

In the time they were together at Ferrari, and when they were both running at the finish, Bandini did not beat Surtees once.  On average Surtees was 2 places ahead.  OK, Mexico 1964 would have seen Bandini beat Surtees sans team orders, but once in two and a half years? 

Yes that is correct, but the real issue is if Surtees could have won enough to beat Brabham and I don't think he really would have. He would have done better than Bandini, but the difference from 2 6th and 2 podiums? Probably not,

 

Any thought on how Ferrari could have managed entries for the British GP? Without this I don't see how Surtees had a chance, Also would that not have triggered his quitting anyway? As I said Ferrari was not exactly a well organized and cohesive team that year and this is quite important for a serious challenge. 

[D28]

Yes that is correct, but the real issue is if Surtees could have won enough to beat Brabham and I don't think he really would have. He would have done better than Bandini, but the difference from the 2 6th and 2 wins or podiums? Probably not,

 

Any thought on how Ferrari could have managed entries for the British GP? Without this I don't see how Surtees had a chance, Also would that not have triggered his quitting the team anyway? As I said Ferrari was not exactly a well organized and cohesive team that year and this is quite important for a serious challenge. 

Edited by D28, 21 November 2016 - 20:34.

[Dicun]

True enough, in fact the only 2 Keke incidents that immediately spring to mind were spins in consecutive races, Mansell's first two wins actually. No doubt there were others I've forgotten but certainly not many.

 

At Brands Hatch he made an astonishing recovery - judging by his pace shown after his spin, he would have easily won that race had it no been for Senna's naughty move that made him spin. And in Kyalami he was sitting comfortably in the lead when he spun on the oil that leaked onto the track from Ghinzani's Toleman. Even Nigel admitted that it was very lucky for him that he had been overtaken by Keke before this incident, because otherwise it would have been him spinning out on that oil puddle. He claimed that he'd just avoided spinning out himself after seeing Keke's unfortunate spin in front of him. Hence Keke pretty much lost two consecutive races because of bad luck with Nigel ending up picking up the pieces in both cases.

 

1985 was a funny year for Keke as with a bit of better luck and reliability he could have won the WDC. Apart from these two very possible victories, he retired from the lead in Rio, retired in Silverstone whilst running 3rd, was hit by brake problems while running in the lead in Hockenheim forcing him to drop back to third and then eventually out of the race, retired whilst running 2nd in Austria, retired from the lead in Zandvoort, retired from the lead in Monza ... What rotten luck.

 

So he could easily have ended up with as much as 8 victories, 11 podiums and over 90 points in total. He was simply fantastic that year.

Edited by Dicun, 21 November 2016 - 22:08.

[PlayboyRacer]

Depends on what you define as great but with Schumacher he effectively lapped rest of the field at European GP or was it Luxemburg at Nürnburgring in 00. He would have but he decided not get involved with Irvine and Coulthard fighting for third when he got close to lapping them couple laps from the end.

Comparable to Damon at Japan 94, Brazil 96 or Spa 98? I would really not think so.

For me it has to be an absolute stand out performance.

[PlatenGlass]

Comparable to Damon at Japan 94, Brazil 96 or Spa 98? I would really not think so.

For me it has to be an absolute stand out performance.

I think so. Japan 1994 was safety car enhanced (Schumacher lost his lead and the ability to pull away further on his lighter fuel load and this is where the race was really won and lost), and at Spa 1998 he was way off the pace of Schumacher, and it would only have been seen as a good drive had Schumacher not retired. Plus Ralf was pretty competitive with him in the later stages and he required team orders to remove the threat.

Edit - Plus Japan 1994 was really only seen as excellent because it was generally assumed that Hill was inferior to Schumacher and wouldn't be able to beat him in these conditions. Looked at more objectively, it's a battle he should have been with a good chance of winning being in the Williams. So if we're viewing Hill from the perspective of him being a champion driver, it's nothing more than we should expect. Only if we view it from the 1994 viewpoint of an unproven driver was it worthy of note.

Edited by PlatenGlass, 21 November 2016 - 23:49.

[PlayboyRacer]

We will politely agree to disagree.

Even excluding Spa 98 (your right it was good fortune also) those other 2 examples mentioned exceed anything Hakkinen produced in the wet IMO of course.

Too much hoo ha about 'Williams this, Williams that' though when it comes to Damon...to play down everything he did. I don't find it correct at all.

The Hakkinen example given... if memory serves correct he was outpacing MS (in a better car) until the conditions turned greasy and then Michael outgunned him.

I never found Mika was strong in greasy or trecherous conditions. Whereas I think Damon proved he was more often than not.

[Tsarwash]

I think that too often Hill is compared to Senna, and Prost, which may be why people underrate him IMO.

[barzini]

 

 

 

2007: Raikkonen: the Ferrari was so much better than the field even Massa was winning regularly.  In fact Massa was so competitive with Kimi that it was down to Massa handing him a win that Kimi took the title.  I think I’d be embarrassed in those circumstances.  

 

 

 

I have no words..

[Oho]

The Hakkinen example given... if memory serves correct he was outpacing MS (in a better car) until the conditions turned greasy and then Michael outgunned him.
 

 

Your memory does not serve correct in either case, Silverstone was absolutely drenched from the word go and at Nürnburgring rain started less than third into the race and the track remained wet from there on end. Häkkinen was weak in comparison to Schumacher at the onset of rain, but then who wasn't, but in properly wet conditions while still not as good as Schumacher he was quite competent. Actually Häkkinen also did quite well at France in the wet in 1999 as well  climbing form 16th or somtehing like that to second in wet despite loosing several spots at one point after safety car restart due to spin at Adelaide hairpin.

[PlayboyRacer]

Your memory does not serve correct in either case, Silverstone was absolutely drenched from the word go and at Nürnburgring rain started less than third into the race and the track remained wet from there on end. Häkkinen was weak in comparison to Schumacher at the onset of rain, but then who wasn't, but in properly wet conditions while still not as good as Schumacher he was quite competent. Actually Häkkinen also did quite well at France in the wet in 1999 as well climbing form 16th or somtehing like that to second in wet despite loosing several spots at one point after safety car restart due to spin at Adelaide hairpin.

Yes didn't think I remembered totally accurate. Was the Nurburgring and I only remembered it did start raining after the start. Which, as I said, at that point Schumacher outgunned him. Silverstone? Hakkinen spun off from memory...which kind of proves the point. Went off twice from memory?

He could do quick laps in the wet yes, no doubt. Competent to a degree... However that's a bit far from really strong performances and race wins...

Which to my original point... Damon Hill achieved that in such conditions. Hakkinen didn't. Yes Mika was much weaker than Michael in such conditions, as was everyone, however a couple of drivers were much closer. Hill and Alesi spring to mind.

They showed superiority over Hakkinen in that regard.

Edited by PlayboyRacer, 22 November 2016 - 09:59.

[PlatenGlass]

It's also not just about winning races. You have to look at the range of performances. For Hill there is also Nurburgring and Japan in 1995 and Spain in 1996 where he went off.

There will be many Hakkinen examples too, but the point is that for both drivers having spent time in the best car, I don't think either of them showed themselves to be particularly great in the rain. Good on their day (which most generally good drivers are) but not consistently so.

[chunder27]

But the fact is they won titles, and that is all that matters.

 

They won and took advantage of their car, speed and others misfortune.

 

Just as their rival would have done to them.

 

I think if you looked at most 1st and second in a title race over the years, you won't find many who were regularly not considered to be first or second fastest driver over the year.

 

Perhaps when Rosberg won it, he was able to pick up the pieces of Ferrari. Brabham and Renault unreliability, but as I say he put himself there, was by far the best of the rest and fully deserved his title.

 

There must be other examples. 

[noriaki]

 

OK, I’ve decided to rank the championships in order.  And although this is a subjective list, I am, objectively, a genius, so this is an objectively genius list.  

 

 

Obviously, yeah.

 

Hamilton's error-ridden 2008 in the top ten and Button's measured 2009 in the bottom five, because, you know, a Kovalainen on a compromised strategy in every single race was comparatively such a force compared to Barrichello...or both Ascari's seasons in one of the the most dominant cars in WDC history (obviously with the advantage of being Scuderia's first horse, Rudi Fischer in an amateur team's 500 does not reduce its dominance) in the top 4, and Fangio/Mansell/Vettel/Schumacher's championships, where they dominated their teammates in a largely similar fashion, confined to the midpack solely on the criteria of sitting in the dominant car...seems fair. 

[Collombin]

Vettel won 4 in a row, is he better than Alonso or Hamilton?

Even someone with no historical knowledge or context must be crazy to believe titles are everything with such a recent example of why this isn't the case.

[screamingV16]

We will politely agree to disagree.

Even excluding Spa 98 (your right it was good fortune also) those other 2 examples mentioned exceed anything Hakkinen produced in the wet IMO of course.

Too much hoo ha about 'Williams this, Williams that' though when it comes to Damon...to play down everything he did. I don't find it correct at all.

The Hakkinen example given... if memory serves correct he was outpacing MS (in a better car) until the conditions turned greasy and then Michael outgunned him.

I never found Mika was strong in greasy or trecherous conditions. Whereas I think Damon proved he was more often than not.

 

Plus Hill's performance in Brazil 93 in only his 4th GP (where his team mate spun off in the wet) and Donnington 93, where Hill finished ahead of his team mate and was the only driver to finish on the same lap as Senna, weren't bad wet weather drives either. Also Hill in Monaco 96 were he drove away from the field in the wet after Schumacher drove like an amatuer, blew his start and stuck it in the wall on the first lap and Villenueve badly underperfomed. He might not have been Senna or Schumacher in the wet, but Hill was a lot more consistant and solid than the rest in the 90s.

 

Edit: typo.

Edited by screamingV16, 22 November 2016 - 14:09.

[Lights]

 

Brawn finds a diffuser solution that is outlawed for everyone else.  

 

What the hell am I reading?

[ensign14]

What the hell am I reading?

 

Pretty well known that Red Bull et al had diffuser holes that Whiting said were illegal.  Brawn (and Toyota/Williams) did very nearly the same thing and Whiting gave the OK.  All part of Mosley trying to undermine the grandees.
 

[ensign14]

Obviously, yeah.

 

Hamilton's error-ridden 2008 in the top ten and Button's measured 2009 in the bottom five, because, you know, a Kovalainen on a compromised strategy in every single race was comparatively such a force compared to Barrichello...or both Ascari's seasons in one of the the most dominant cars in WDC history (obviously with the advantage of being Scuderia's first horse, Rudi Fischer in an amateur team's 500 does not reduce its dominance) in the top 4, and Fangio/Mansell/Vettel/Schumacher's championships, where they dominated their teammates in a largely similar fashion, confined to the midpack solely on the criteria of sitting in the dominant car...seems fair. 

 

The point is how impressive was Hamilton in 2008 compared to how impressive was Button in 2009.  The 2008 McLaren was nowhere near the Ferrari in terms of outright pace yet Hamilton beat them both.  Indeed the McLaren might have been worse than the BMW-Sauber as well. 

 

Button had a rocketship for 75% of the season and only had Barrichello to worry about.  His title was not as great an achievement as Hamilton's.

 

And one big difference between Ascari and Schumacher's Ferrari titles is anyone could buy a 500 and give it a go.  Ascari's competition in the same car was therefore potentially the entire Grand Prix world.  Schumacher only had a much slower driver who was contractually bound not to beat him.  Schumacher winning the title in those circumstances was not as great an achievement.
 

[noriaki]

The point is how impressive was Hamilton in 2008 compared to how impressive was Button in 2009.  The 2008 McLaren was nowhere near the Ferrari in terms of outright pace yet Hamilton beat them both.  Indeed the McLaren might have been worse than the BMW-Sauber as well. 

 

Button had a rocketship for 75% of the season and only had Barrichello to worry about.  His title was not as great an achievement as Hamilton's.

 

And one big difference between Ascari and Schumacher's Ferrari titles is anyone could buy a 500 and give it a go.  Ascari's competition in the same car was therefore potentially the entire Grand Prix world.  Schumacher only had a much slower driver who was contractually bound not to beat him.  Schumacher winning the title in those circumstances was not as great an achievement.
 

 

Perhaps the Ferrari indeed was a faster car outright, but it was also driven by Felipe Massa and an unhappy-with-the-car Kimi. Kovalainen being roughly as strong in qualifying as his compatriot in the McLaren suggests that perhaps beating the Ferraris in 2008 was not quite the heroic achievement you represent. Personally I rate Lewis' dominant 2015 performance (and for the record, his rookie year+a few others where he didn't get a title) far above his 2008 campaign. 

 

And yeah, anyone could have bought the 500 and given it a go. But that's coulds and woulds, because what occurred in reality is that nobody competitive did - and don't play me Rosier. Essentially that reduced his competition to Farina and Taruffi (and Hawthorn in '53) - wouldn't consider those two that mighty compared to the Patreses, Barrichellos, or Webbers of the later centuries. Certainly not as mighty compared to the Mosses or Nico Rosbergs.  

 

(just so you don't get me wrong, I really do rate Ascari - it's just that I value the later "walkovers" similarly to Ascari's titles)

[AnR]

It has been estblished around 100 times that the McLaren was car off the year both in 2007 and 2008, and that Kimi:s WDC in 2007 was in deed made in an inferior car.

Add to that that the McLaren of 2008, often called McFerrari was a result of cheating inside McLaren the title of 2008 is heavily stained.

[PlatenGlass]

It has been estblished around 100 times that the McLaren was car off the year both in 2007 and 2008, and that Kimi:s WDC in 2007 was in deed made in an inferior car.

I don't think it has. There is no consensus on the matter.

[Dicun]

Pretty well known that Red Bull et al had diffuser holes that Whiting said were illegal.  Brawn (and Toyota/Williams) did very nearly the same thing and Whiting gave the OK.  All part of Mosley trying to undermine the grandees.
 

 

Could you please provide any reliable sources regarding this?