139 replies to this topic

[noikeee]

Interestingly I just noticed all 3 last team-mates of the Brazilian champions, became champions themselves.

 

Ayrton - Damon Hill

Emerson - Keke Rosberg

Nelson - Michael Schumacher

 

One for the crazy statistics thread, I guess.

[garoidb]

 

Nelson was thought off to be the grid's benchmark for the early 80s, but was later a bit exposed when up against Nigel Mansell, with the Nigel/Nelson battle being pretty much a draw. With Mansell having been beaten by Prost, Rosberg, de Angelis; and then Senna further proven to be considerably quicker than Prost, on hindsight I struggle to see Piquet as at best more than a distant joint 3rd in his generation to Prost/Senna.

 

Poor team-mates seems a strange criticism to throw at Emmo given than Piquet made his name against poor team-mates as well: Zunino, Rebaque, young brothers Fabi on a bizarre rotation scheme, Hesnault, Surer, later Nakajima as well. I'm pretty much not considering any of that, just as I'm not considering Fittipaldi's achievements against Wisell or poor Dave Walker whose skills evaporated in F1.

 

Emmo at his best comfortably outscored world champion Denny Hulme (albeit on his later years) and Jochen Mass. He also marginally beat Ronnie Peterson on points and reliability, although Ronnie was comfortably quicker in qualifying - I'd consider that a draw or Ronnie's marginal win, but Ronnie was pretty much the benchmark talent on the grid at the time. You would probably say the best of that early 70s era was either Ronnie or most likely Jackie Stewart. And I believe Emmo was closer to Jackie/Ronnie than Nelson was to his respective era benchmark Senna.

 

That's not to say Nelson was bad, of course not. His finest "team-mate" achievements were possibly a) being fairly superior to Patrese (althouhg reliability would make him lose on points in 82) and b) keeping up with Lauda as a young unexperienced driver (but how motivated was Lauda in 79?).

 

The careers of both drivers had pretty similar late decay. In later years Piquet was not super convincing against either Nannini or Moreno (although beat them), and Emmo also was marginally beaten by Keke Rosberg - but Keke would later reveal himself a world champion. Amusingly that's a characteristic that Piquet shares as his last team-mate would also later get crowned champion: Michael Schumacher.

 

With respect to the bolded text, there is generally no effort in these comparisons to control for career stage. Senna was significantly younger than the other three and, in particular, was eight years younger than Piquet. Your argument appears to be that he (Piquet) can't have been the benchmark for the early eighties because a guy who wasn't there turned out to be faster than a group of remaining veteran drivers when he was in his prime several years later. 

 

Piquet, of course, was not beaten by Schumacher. It's not a big point, but if everything else is being mentioned then let's mention that too.

 

My overall take on this is that debates such as these should separate out those who survived their careers from those who did not. The spectre of unfulfilled potential clouds the issue too much.

[noikeee]

With respect to the bolded text, there is generally no effort in these comparisons to control for career stage. Senna was significantly younger than the other three and, in particular, was eight years younger than Piquet. Your argument appears to be that he (Piquet) can't have been the benchmark for the early eighties because a guy who wasn't there turned out to be faster than a group of remaining veteran drivers when he was in his prime several years later. 

 

Piquet, of course, was not beaten by Schumacher. It's not a big point, but if everything else is being mentioned then let's mention that too.

 

My overall take on this is that debates such as these should separate out those who survived their careers from those who did not. The spectre of unfulfilled potential clouds the issue too much.

 

Well fair enough, but I still consider Prost above Piquet the first half of the 80s. And Gilles who sadly, well, suffered from the "issue" you just mentioned. It's easy to look at this all from a purely analytical mathematical way, and forget just what a massive factor danger was, and how the human factor with such emotions at stake dwarfs the purely analytical view of performance.

 

I wasn't really "including" Piquet v Schumacher because that was too short of a sample, too few races for real comparison, but Michael was thrown midseason into the car as a rookie yet outqualified him 4 to 1. Of course by then Nelson Piquet was pretty old so it's obviously not a fair indication of his peak form.

Edited by noikeee, 27 December 2018 - 20:41.

[garoidb]

Well fair enough, but I still consider Prost above Piquet the first half of the 80s. And Gilles who sadly, well, suffered from the "issue" you just mentioned. It's easy to look at this all from a purely analytical mathematical way, and forget just what a massive factor danger was, and how the human factor with such emotions at stake dwarfs the purely analytical view of performance.

 

I wasn't really "including" Piquet v Schumacher because that was too short of a sample, too few races for real comparison, but Michael was thrown midseason into the car as a rookie yet outqualified him 4 to 1. Of course by then Nelson Piquet was pretty old so it's obviously not a fair indication of his peak form.

 

If pushed, I would probably say there was no single benchmark for the early 80s in the way that there has been on several occasions since. It is always difficult to argue the case for drivers who died or were incapacitated at their peak (such as Gilles, Didier, Elio or later Ayrton) relative to those who went on to long careers. They are different categories in my opinion. This is what makes the Brazilian top three comparison difficult. Of the early 80s survivors, Piquet and Prost would be the two to look at, for me and their careers substantially overlapped so a good comparison could be made. The media focus on the "Senna era", or perhaps it could be called the "Mansell era" in the UK, shortchanges those whose careers did not peak simultaneously with Ayrton (and Nigel). 

 

Concerning the brazilians, we would probably all have liked to see Ayrton and Nelson have later careers in Indycars too, and in that sense Emerson was the fortunate one.  

Edited by garoidb, 27 December 2018 - 21:20.

[Collombin]

I would probably say there was no single benchmark for the early 80s in the way that there has been on several occasions since.

I think Piquet was very much the benchmark in the 83-85 timeframe, hence his subsequent slump was so confusing. Was he overrated? Was Mansell underrated? I know the Piquet apologists love to jump on the Imola 87 crash, but unfortunately it came a year too late - based on popular perception Mansell should have been nowhere near Piquet in 86, and yet it was Nigel who was superior. Piquet's Lotus career just confirmed his decline, and apart from the occasional flash of glories past whilst at Benetton, that was pretty much that. Meanwhile the older Emerson was reestablishing himself as a force in CART against some good opposition.

Hence, although believing peak Piquet > peak Fittipaldi, assessing their full careers I give Emerson a small but decisive edge.

Edited by E.B., 27 December 2018 - 23:25.

[Spillage]

Interesting to see quite a few people put Barrichello above Massa. Barrichello had a title-winning car six times (including a couple of utterly dominant Ferraris) and won just 11 races - not a great strike rate. Massa also won 11 races but never had a title-winning car.

Here's my list. F1 only:

1) Senna
2) E Fittipaldi
3) Piquet
4) Massa
5) Barrichello
6) Pace
7) Moreno
8) C Fittipaldi
9) Gugelmin
10) Zonta

Not really sure Zonta deserves to be there, but I always kinda liked him. Think he was a bit better than his results suggest.

Edited by Spillage, 28 December 2018 - 10:28.

[DerFlugplatz]

1. A Senna

2. Piquet 

3. E Fittipaldi

4. Barrichello

5. Massa

6. Pace

7. Moreno

8. C Fittipaldi

9. B Senna

10. C da Matta

[PlayboyRacer]

The ultimate test of the points fairness and validity is of course, does Alain Prost get the same judgement for doing the same thing as Senna and Schumacher, i.e. winning a championship by deliberately causing an accident with his WDC rival?

I don't view Suzuka 1989 as the same deliberate act as Suzuka 1990 (a 150mph battering ram used on Prost) nor the same as Jerez 1997 (Schumachers onboard shows him turn away from JV then abruptly turn back in).

In addition we have Estoril 1988 where Senna squeezed Prost like a madman up against the pitwall, likewise Schumacher on Barrichello in 2010 Hungary.

Prost was no angel. But his general on track conduct was a world away from Ayrton and Michael.

[PlayboyRacer]

Interesting to see quite a few people put Barrichello above Massa. Barrichello had a title-winning car six times (including a couple of utterly dominant Ferrari's)) andn just 11 races - not a great strike rate. Massa also won 11 races but never had a title-winning car.

Here's my list. F1 only:

1) Senna
2) E Fittipaldi
3) Piquet
4) Massa
5) Barrichello
6) Pace
7) Moreno
8) C Fittipaldi
9) Gugelmin
10) Zonta

Not really sure Zonta deserves to be there, but I always kinda liked him. Think he was a bit better than his results suggest.

Absolutely agree with the part about Barrichello. As I alluded to earlier I think the peak of Felipes career well overshadows what Rubens managed. I still believe Rubens was even fortunate to be a Ferrari driver... right sort of driver, right circumstances for MS and co.

Nice point you make about Ricardo Zonta too. He was thrown in the deep end at BAR, not only it being a new team... but his teammate was a red hot Villeneuve at that time. He also had the accident in Brazil 1999?? from memory which most likely set him back somewhat.

[PlatenGlass]

Too much crap, certainly. Prost wasn't "not giving space", he actively moved his car into Sennas, turning right way before normal corner entry, with Senna already partly alongside. Senna running into the back of Prost a year later looked more spectacular, but ultimately they were both doing the same thing, driving into their direct WDC opponent to win the championship.

The other thing - if it makes a difference - is that Prost probably felt the title slipping away from him in 1989 - Senna would have gone to Adelaide as favourite with the Japan win. On the other hand, Prost leading into the first turn at Japan in 1990 certainly did not make him title favourite. He still really had an outside chance. So Senna's motivation was less likely to be purely title-related, but whether that makes any difference to how it should be judged is debatable.

[as65p]

In addition we have Estoril 1988 where Senna squeezed Prost like a madman up against the pitwall, likewise Schumacher on Barrichello in 2010 Hungary.
 

 

Amazing how that kind of bollocks gets repeated even with stuff readily to see for everyone on youtube. There's nothing "likewise" about a gap to the pitwall of at least 1,50 m in case of Senna/ Prost and a gap of at most 25 cm in case of Schumacher/Barrichello.

 

Prost was no angel. But his general on track conduct was a world away from Ayrton and Michael.

True, yet that doesn't change one bit what Prost did at Suzuka '89.

[as65p]

The other thing - if it makes a difference - is that Prost probably felt the title slipping away from him in 1989 - Senna would have gone to Adelaide as favourite with the Japan win. On the other hand, Prost leading into the first turn at Japan in 1990 certainly did not make him title favourite. He still really had an outside chance. So Senna's motivation was less likely to be purely title-related, but whether that makes any difference to how it should be judged is debatable.

Hm, I rather think the opposite TBH (unless I mistunderstood what you're saying). Prost could win the title in Suzuka, Senna not, and by leading after the start, all Prost had to do was stay there, whereas Senna had to change the order to remain in the game.

[sopa]

 

 

I did hesitate between Emmo and Nelson, but chose Emmo mostly because I think he has a slightly stronger claim at being the outright best driver in the grid at one given stage, than Nelson has. This since I'm having a look at team-mate comparisons a lot to have some basis for filling my lists:

 

 

Talking about benchmarks, I'd say Piquet was no less of a benchmark in early 80's than Fittipaldi was in early 70's. And if Piquet's performance later against Mansell creates a questionmark, so did Fittipaldi's performance against Peterson. Oddly enough both were kind of found out in those situations.

 

---

 

What concerns the Barrichello v Massa debate some have, then - well - Massa had the impressive 2008, perhaps more impressive than any season Rubens ever had. But Barrichello seemed to have better longevity. Massa didn't impress basically throughout the entire 2010's.

Edited by sopa, 28 December 2018 - 08:42.

[PlayboyRacer]

Amazing how that kind of bollocks gets repeated even with stuff readily to see for everyone on youtube. There's nothing "likewise" about a gap to the pitwall of at least 1,50 m in case of Senna/ Prost and a gap of at most 25 cm in case of Schumacher/Barrichello.

True, yet that doesn't change one bit what Prost did at Suzuka '89.

Ok then... have it your way.

Suzuka 1989 incident was nothing like Suzuka 1990, Jerez 1997 and Adelaide 1994. There is absolute grey area in the '89 incident, absolutely none in the other 3.

That alone makes Prost different to the other two. Are Senna and Schumacher geniuses or thugs? You decide. One thing is for sure though -

You won't see anyone calling Prost a thug for his on track conduct. Thats good enough for me in addition to the evidence we have.

[PayasYouRace]

Interesting to see quite a few people put Barrichello above Massa. Barrichello had a title-winning car six times (including a couple of utterly dominant Ferrari's)) andn just 11 races - not a great strike rate. Massa also won 11 races but never had a title-winning car.
 

 

Massa literally had title winning cars in 2007 and 2008.

[HP]

If looking from another perspective, leaving out the questionable stuff, for me it has to be Ayrton Senna da Silva.

 

For all his flaws, who comes close to Senna's impact (pun intended) off-track? Especially in his home country. If anything Senna would win the popular vote hands down.

 

Often it is that forceful and influential characters like him pushing the boundaries too much and do silly stuff. But I prefer this over nice guys like Barrichello. Senna translates for me into opportunity, making hard things possible. Barrichello on the other hand.. Unfortunately Brazil hasn't gotten the luxury of a Jim Clark style driver (But thankfully they got it elsewhere with Pele though)

[PlayboyRacer]

What concerns the Barrichello v Massa debate some have, then - well - Massa had the impressive 2008, perhaps more impressive than any season Rubens ever had. But Barrichello seemed to have better longevity. Massa didn't impress basically throughout the entire 2010's.

I'm a bit perplexed by the obsession with 'longevity'. Sure its great to have a long career but surely a certain level of achievement needs to be attached? Otherwise do we just rate drivers on how long they hang around for?

Surely Massas peak (06-09) period outstrips any period Barrichello had? Plus did Rubens ever beat a quality teammate like Raikkonen to the degree Massa did?

I feel that, had Massa ultimately won that championship, the debate over this wouldn't even be a discussion. Surely missing out in the manner he did doesn't relegate him below the likes of Barrichello... or a Coulthard for example. Drivers who had championship challenging cars for multiple seasons and yet didn't get near a world title.

Edited by PlayboyRacer, 28 December 2018 - 09:15.

[Taxi]

Interesting points on Piquet/Emmerson. I rate Piquet higher because:

 

1- More titles, and more absolute results

2- Better wins, fastest laps and poles [specialy this one] ratios

3- With all due respect to Stewart, Lauda  and Petterson but the 80's field was more competitve. Piquet had to fight Prost, Senna, Mansell, Rosberg, [and Lauda, actually]

4- In 1987 he had a terrible accident that stole his speed in quali [in 1986 he was equal to Mansell in quali who was equal to Prost in 1990 with 3 poles to Prost's none]

5- in 1987 he still won the title against his own team [Patrick Head was not even talking to him] who favoured Mansell. 

6- his 1990 3rd place with the 4th best car was a vintage season: he beated Mansell and Berger in way superior cars, and Parese, Butsen in a slight superior car. At 38. 

7- He was more or less equal to hurricane Schumacher  in their 5 races together. At 39. 

Edited by Taxi, 28 December 2018 - 09:28.

[noriaki]

I'm a bit perplexed by the obsession with 'longevity'. Sure its great to have a long career but surely a certain level of achievement needs to be attached? Otherwise do we just rate drivers on how long they hang around for?

Surely Massas peak (06-09) period outstrips any period Barrichello had? Plus did Rubens ever beat a quality teammate like Raikkonen to the degree Massa did?

I feel that, had Massa ultimately won that championship, the debate over this wouldn't even be a discussion. Surely missing out in the manner he did doesn't relegate him below the likes of Barrichello... or a Coulthard for example. Drivers who had championship challenging cars for multiple seasons and yet didn't get near a world title.

People always pretend as if Rubens career consists of his Ferrari years only.

But Rubens ended Boutsen, Magnussen's and Brundle's career at Jordan & Stewart, and had the measure of Herbert, Verstappen and Irvine. He went to Ferrari where he was closer to Schumacher than Massa ever was to Alonso, despite both similarly reduced to a #2 status. 2003 with a little more mechanical fortune he could actually have matched Schumi.

Went to Honda, it was one draw & one season for Rubens and one for Jenson, before JB found his balance in early 2009. Rubens had the beating of Jenson later on, but by then other teams had caught up so he coukdn't make use of it. Williams, beat Hulk and Maldonado easily.

I agree Massa was probably a tiny bit quicker in his peak. But Rubens was the more complete driver.

[Taxi]

Barrichello was pretty good on his peak. He beated Schumacher many times on merit and would have done it even more without team orders [austria 2002, Usa 2005...] He was more complete than Massa who was more fragile. But Massa was faster over one lap.  

[PlayboyRacer]

I think it depends on what you look for in a driver. If your criteria is heavy on longevity and consistency (even if their peak level is lower) then yeah the likes of Barrichello are your men.

I prefer to rate the ultimate peak the driver attains, their pure speed at their very best (16 poles for Massa I think?), their highest achievements and who they beat to attain that. So surely Massa takes that out.

Each to their own I guess.

[PayasYouRace]

 

4- In 1987 he had a terrible accident that stole his speed in quali [in 1986 he was equal to Mansell in quali who was equal to Prost in 1990 with 3 poles to Prost's none]

5- in 1987 he still won the title against his own team [Patrick Head was not even talking to him] who favoured Mansell. 

6- his 1990 3rd place with the 4th best car was a vintage season: he beated Mansell and Berger in way superior cars, and Parese, Butsen in a slight superior car. At 38. 

 

 

I think that's a massive distortion to make him look better. Piquet was champion by default in 1987 because Mansell had so many retirements, mostly mechanical retirements. As for 1990, as I said earlier:

 

Piquet didn’t exactly have a challenge to finish 3rd in 1990. Mansell was the only one who should have finished ahead of him but he bore the brunt of Ferrari’s unreliability. His B190 was at worst a very close 4th best that year. I’d say it was on a par with the FW13B and both were close enough to the MP4/5B and 641 for the driver to be a big factor. But the latter was only driven by Patrese and Boutsen.

[Taxi]

And a point for Massa in that he was way closer to get a  title in 2007/08 than Barrichello ever was. 

[Taxi]

In 1987 Piquet had to skip a race and to cope  with his accident consequences. Mansell was unlucky in Hungary but even so he had more than 10 points less in the end of the year. Piquet retired a few times too. 

 

In 1990 don't forget Berger in the Mclaren. 

[PayasYouRace]

In 1987 Piquet had to skip a race and to cope  with his accident consequences. Mansell was unlucky in Hungary but even so he had more than 10 points less in the end of the year. Piquet retired a few times too. 

 

In 1990 don't forget Berger in the Mclaren. 

 

Yeah, Piquet had a run of 9 consecutive podiums in a best 11 scores points system. Skipping a race was irrelevant to his championship that year because it would be one of his discards, like the 4th place he discarded. Meanwhile Mansell only had 9 finishes in total. Yet when he did finish he usually beat Piquet and they were 6 wins to 3 that year. Piquet was a model of consistency and it won him the title but he was lucky that the No.5 car was usually the one that failed.

 

What about Berger in the McLaren? The MP4/5B wasn't an MP4/4. The top 4 cars that year were very close in performance. All four cars won races that year, but Berger couldn't. To me that says the McLaren wasn't way ahead of the rest.

Edited by PayasYouRace, 28 December 2018 - 09:54.

[as65p]

Ok then... have it your way.

Suzuka 1989 incident was nothing like Suzuka 1990, Jerez 1997 and Adelaide 1994. There is absolute grey area in the '89 incident, absolutely none in the other 3.

 

Not my impression re: Adelaide '94 that there's "absolutely" no grey area in it. The other two are undisputed mainly because the culprits confessed later. Which normally should get people thinking how many more incidents would be "undisputed" if only the participants were honest at some point after the event.

 

That alone makes Prost different to the other two. Are Senna and Schumacher geniuses or thugs? You decide. One thing is for sure though -

You won't see anyone calling Prost a thug for his on track conduct. Thats good enough for me in addition to the evidence we have.

 

Well, there's apparently a bunch of people willing to follow what others are saying rather than any evidence. Like in the pitwall incidents example, which you wisely chose to ignore in your reply. Anyway I agree with "have it your way"... everyone has had a chance to make up his mind about that ancient stuff for ages, minds won't be changed anymore.

[ensign14]

And a point for Massa in that he was way closer to get a  title in 2007/08 than Barrichello ever was. 

 

Barrichello was against Schumacher though.  Massa was against Raikkonen.

[PlayboyRacer]

Barrichello was against Schumacher though. Massa was against Raikkonen.

Was he 'against' Schumacher though? Or a willing number two?

If the latter... then automatically thats a black mark in my book.

[Spillage]

Massa literally had title winning cars in 2007 and 2008.

WCC winning cars, not WDC winning cars, but I do take your point (although Ferrari did not win the 2007 WCC on the track).

I stand by what I say though. Even if Massa did have the best car in 2007-08, he won as many races as Barrichello and came much closer to winning the world title. Rubens definitely had the better machinery during his career.

EDIT: Just realised I'm chatting bollocks in the first paragraph. I still stand by the second though.

Edited by Spillage, 28 December 2018 - 10:44.

[Touchdown]

Not my impression re: Adelaide '94 that there's "absolutely" no grey area in it. The other two are undisputed mainly because the culprits confessed later. Which normally should get people thinking how many more incidents would be "undisputed" if only the participants were honest at some point after the event.

If anything I actually have a bit more respect for Senna for actually admitting to it - while I believe all 4 were intentional crashes attempting to secure WDCs, it was only Senna who fronted up and admitted what he did.

 

It's always been my opinion that you can't vilify Senna for Suzuka 1990 without doing the same to Prost for Suzuka 1989.

[PlayboyRacer]

Not my impression re: Adelaide '94 that there's "absolutely" no grey area in it. The other two are undisputed mainly because the culprits confessed later. Which normally should get people thinking how many more incidents would be "undisputed" if only the participants were honest at some point after the event

So let me get this straight - you only believed Schumacher caused the Jerez incident deliberately when he admitted it years later?

The onboard footage of him turning to avoid and then sharply turning back into Villeneuve didn't give it away? Astonishing.

As for the pitwall incidents we touched on - imo they were thug moves and well beyond the line of what's acceptable. Clearly we have differing views on where that limit stands.

I'm all for dancing on the limit of what's acceptable... but blatently going way beyond it because your a law unto yourself? No thanks, we'll agree to disagree.

Edited by PlayboyRacer, 28 December 2018 - 10:37.

[noriaki]

Was he 'against' Schumacher though? Or a willing number two?

If the latter... then automatically thats a black mark in my book.

 

It's a fair opinion. But if that's your position, I can't see why you would not apply the same criteria with Massa being a similarly willing #2 to Alonso. 

Edited by noriaki, 28 December 2018 - 10:39.

[AlexPrime]

WCC winning cars, not WDC winning cars, but I do take your point (although Ferrari did not win the 2007 WCC on the track).

But they did win the 2007 wdc on track... bwoah!

[Spillage]

But they did win the 2007 wdc on track... bwoah!

Oh yeah. D'oh! Embarrassing that I managed to forget that!

[sopa]

Interestingly in 2009 Barrichello was about as close to the championship as Massa had been in 2007. In '07 Massa finished 16 points off the WDC, Rubens in '09 was 18 points off.

[PlayboyRacer]

It's a fair opinion. But if that's your position, I can't see why you would not apply the same criteria with Massa being a similarly willing #2 to Alonso.

Was Massa contractually obligated? Serious question because I am not even sure.

Rubens (as far as I am aware) signed away arguably his best years to be Schumachers number two. He wasn't hired because he was the best driver after Schumacher, he was hired because he fit a mould they were looking for.

You make a valid point about Massa in respect to his time with Alonso. However I'll give him the benefit of the doubt for now given he fought Raikkonen on equal terms for 3 seasons at Ferrari. If things changed contractually when Alonso arrived (and after Massas accident also) then happy to be told as much.

[Spillage]

He beated Schumacher many times on merit and would have done it even more without team orders [austria 2002, Usa 2005...] fragile.

I think this is a bit of a myth. It's definitely true that Barrichello gave up a few chances to win, but Schumacher repayed the favour on several occasions. In 2002, for example, Schumacher gave Barrichello the win at Indy and finished less than half a second behind in Budapest and Monza. Adjust for all these examples where they clearly weren't racing each other and I'm not sure Barrichello's stats would look any better.

Edited by Spillage, 28 December 2018 - 10:54.

[noriaki]

Was Massa contractually obligated? Serious question because I am not even sure.

Rubens (as far as I am aware) signed away arguably his best years to be Schumachers number two. He wasn't hired because he was the best driver after Schumacher, he was hired because he fit a mould they were looking for.

You make a valid point about Massa in respect to his time with Alonso. However I'll give him the benefit of the doubt for now given he fought Raikkonen on equal terms for 3 seasons at Ferrari. If things changed contractually when Alonso arrived (and after Massas accident also) then happy to be told as much.

 

Both of them consistently claim "nothing in the contracts indicated number two status". And in both cases even a blind man could see the reality on track. 

 

Wouldn't agree on the claim that Rubens wasn't the best driver available in 2000. He was highly rated at that point, much better CV than Massa had when he was hired in 2006 at least. 

[PlayboyRacer]

Sure best driver available perhaps.

Not the best driver Ferrari would have slot in alongside Schumacher if they wanted the strongest pairing however. In other words... if they were free to cherry pick anyone.

Still not convinced Massa was contractually obligated to be Alonsos number two. I think the overwhelming evidence in the Schumacher/Barrichello years makes that more cut and dry... but happy to be shown otherwise regarding Massa.

Edited by PlayboyRacer, 28 December 2018 - 11:06.

[noriaki]

Sure best driver available perhaps.

Not the best driver Ferrari would have slot in alongside Schumacher if they wanted the strongest pairing however. In other words... if they were free to cherry pick anyone.

 

Surely not. But again, the same applies to Massa. 

[sopa]

Best available? Before 2000 the only drivers (apart from M.S.), who had higher ratings than Barrichello were Hakkinen and Villeneuve. Anybody else? I have my doubts. Frentzen and R. Schumacher may have had an impressive 1999, but so did Barrichello in the Stewart.

 

Meanwhile Massa had been beaten by Heidfeld and Fisichella in team-mate battles and barely beat the aging Villeneuve. So I think Massa was a bigger questionmark, when going into Ferrari.

Edited by sopa, 28 December 2018 - 11:08.

[PlayboyRacer]

Surely not. But again, the same applies to Massa.

Massa almost won the World Championship in 2008 and was strong through a 3 year period in championship calibre cars. Surely prior to 2010 with Alonso, it was fair to argue he was one of the top few drivers in the world. We know he declined thereafter.

Can we honestly say Barrichello was in the top 4 or 5 drivers in the world in 1999? I wouldn't agree with that.

Edited by PlayboyRacer, 28 December 2018 - 11:13.

[noriaki]

Massa almost won the World Championship in 2008 and was strong through a 3 year period in championship calibre cars. Surely prior to 2010 with Alonso, it was fair to argue he was one of the top few drivers in the world. We know he declined thereafter.

Can we honestly say Barrichello was in the top 4 or 5 drivers in the world in 1999? I wouldn't agree with that.

Yeah but why are you comparing Massa 2010 and Barrichello 2000? Felipe joined Ferrari in 2006.

[PlayboyRacer]

Yeah but why are you comparing Massa 2010 and Barrichello 2000? Felipe joined Ferrari in 2006.

I'll give you that, when they both joined Ferrari they were not in the top few drivers in the world. Your right.

[PlayboyRacer]

Best available? Before 2000 the only drivers (apart from M.S.), who had higher ratings than Barrichello were Hakkinen and Villeneuve. Anybody else? I have my doubts. Frentzen and R. Schumacher may have had an impressive 1999, but so did Barrichello in the Stewart.

Taken prior to and upto the conclusion of 1999.

Schumacher

Hakkinen
Villeneuve

R.Schumacher
Irvine
Frentzen
Barrichello
Coulthard
Fisichella

In my opinion of course, to the best of my memory!

[sopa]

What concerns Carlos Pace, then interesting, but he did actually outqualify Reutemann. Even though if you look at points, Reutemann had more of them. Not sure though if that showed their relative skillsets, i.e Pace was more of a qualifier than a racer?

 

Taken prior to and upto the conclusion of 1999.

---

R.Schumacher
Irvine
Frentzen
Barrichello
Coulthard
Fisichella

In my opinion of course, to the best of my memory!

 

I would be amazed if one considered Irvine better than Barrichello at that time. I thought it was viewed M.Schumacher got a younger, faster and hungrier team-mate into 2000 and some even speculated whether Rubens could give Michael a run for his money.

 

Frentzen IIRC was already 33-y-o at that time, so despite his impressive season I'm not sure you would have a clear case of taking him over Rubens for your team if both were available. You can make a case with Ralf though. He was younger than Rubens, just in his 3rd season and did look like a future champion in 1999.

[PlayboyRacer]

I rated Irvine higher than most. I clearly am in the minority there granted... I thought his 1998 season was good alongside Michael and in 1999 he challenged for a world championship, in an inferior car no less, in difficult circumstances. Eddie was no mug and some of his performances (in qualy in particular) in the horrific Jags in 00/01 were rather impressive.

In any case, original point being, Rubens wasn't clear cut in the top few drivers of that time and there were obvious motives behind Ferrari hiring him. Based off performance and potential (omitting Schumi rivals Hakkinen and Villeneuve) I'd have taken Ralf and Fisi ahead of him, or just kept Irvine but Eddie must have had enough of being a contracted number two...

Edited by PlayboyRacer, 28 December 2018 - 12:17.

[Taxi]

Yeah, Piquet had a run of 9 consecutive podiums in a best 11 scores points system. Skipping a race was irrelevant to his championship that year because it would be one of his discards, like the 4th place he discarded. Meanwhile Mansell only had 9 finishes in total. Yet when he did finish he usually beat Piquet and they were 6 wins to 3 that year. Piquet was a model of consistency and it won him the title but he was lucky that the No.5 car was usually the one that failed.

 

What about Berger in the McLaren? The MP4/5B wasn't an MP4/4. The top 4 cars that year were very close in performance. All four cars won races that year, but Berger couldn't. To me that says the McLaren wasn't way ahead of the rest.

 

 

Piquet himself said he won in 1987 because of his consistency rather than speed. He had memory failures and vision problems for months after the accident. It's was quite an achievement to win it despite that and the fact that the team favoured Mansell. 

 

As for the 1990 Benneton it was a solid car, but 4th overall quite far away from the Maclaren and the Ferrari. It had by far the least powerful engine of the top 4 teams. And yes it won races. In the hands of Piquet. 

Edited by Taxi, 28 December 2018 - 12:08.

[sopa]

What concerns 1990, then I'm not sure... was it an impressive season or was Piquet a bit lucky? Personally I got the impression Nannini was at least as quick as Piquet in 1990, but was cruelly denied of good results multiple times, i.e car failure in France or when Senna took him out in Hungary...

 

Also Piquet won the last two races, but in Japan Ferraris and McLarens didn't finish, while Piquet's team-mate Moreno was second and Suzuki was third...

 

I mean good consistent driving by Piquet in 1990, but I don't think he was spectacularly fast. More like he capitalized on others multiple times. But fair enough on him. Decent season overall, and would rate it better than what the Williams drivers did, who didn't capitalize as well given the car they had.

[derstatic]

1. Senna - Clear #1 for me. Almost twice the number of victories of Piquet. Set a new benchmark for dedication to win and compete at the very highest level. Incredible in the wet.

2. Piquet Sr - Equally clear #2. A long and very successful career. Won titles in ground effects cars with DFV in 81. In Turbo, non ground effect in 83 and 87. Very competitive fields in those days and true monsters of cars.

3. E. Fittipaldi - Very consistent performer fron 72-75 coming in first or second all four years. Beaten only by Lauda and Stewart when he did not win the WDC.

4. Barrichello - Difficult to separate Barrichello and Massa but I put Barrichello ahead. My remembering is that he beat Schumacher more frequently than Massa did on merit.

5. Massa - Gets narrowly beaten by Barrichello. Doesn't do his reputation any good with three consecutive seasons of being beaten by Bottas at Williams.

6. Pace

7. Moreno

8. da Matta

9. C. Fittipaldi

10. Gugelmin