Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

F1 Top 10 of All Time


  • Please log in to reply
319 replies to this topic

#51 AlexPrime

AlexPrime
  • Member

  • 1,323 posts
  • Joined: September 17

Posted 08 January 2019 - 10:34

Toss up between Michael, Senna and Fangio. After that Clark, Lewis, Prost, Seb, Stewart... difficult to complete the top 10. Maybe Lauda and Brabham. :up:



Advertisement

#52 Nonesuch

Nonesuch
  • Member

  • 13,797 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 08 January 2019 - 11:36

There is circular logic there, though. Rubens is viewed as an easier team-mate because Michael beat him convincingly.

 

With all the praise for Schumacher and Hamilton, poor old Nico Rosberg does get sort of left out.

 

I plead guilty to forgetting him, too. :blush:



#53 Tsarwash

Tsarwash
  • Member

  • 10,993 posts
  • Joined: August 10

Posted 08 January 2019 - 11:52

I found it quite difficult to choose based on driving ability, beyond the obvious number one, so ranked them by how much I like their names instead.

 

1. Derek Warwick 

2. Wolfgang Von Trips

3. Clay Regazzoni

4. Alessandro Nannini

5. Takuma Sato

6. Elio de Angelis

7. Innes Ireland

8. Tiago Monteiro

9. Froilan Gonzalez

10. Eugenio Castellotti

How could you have left Piers Courage off that list ? 



#54 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 47,151 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 08 January 2019 - 12:04

The greatest name in Formula 1 is surely Alfonso Antonio Vicente Eduardo Angel Blas Francisco de Borja Cabeza de Vaca y Leighton.  2nd at the British GP in 1956.



#55 messy

messy
  • Member

  • 2,825 posts
  • Joined: October 15

Posted 08 January 2019 - 12:58

Jonkheer Karel Pieter Antoni Jan Hubertus Godin de Beaufort comes close, though. Sixth in 1963 Belgian GP.



#56 Yamamoto

Yamamoto
  • Member

  • 749 posts
  • Joined: April 16

Posted 08 January 2019 - 13:12

How could you have left Piers Courage off that list ? 

 

Not enough syllables.



#57 Tsarwash

Tsarwash
  • Member

  • 10,993 posts
  • Joined: August 10

Posted 08 January 2019 - 13:17

The greatest name in Formula 1 is surely Alfonso Antonio Vicente Eduardo Angel Blas Francisco de Borja Cabeza de Vaca y Leighton.  2nd at the British GP in 1956.

Wikipedia say that he was both 2nd and 10th in that race.  :drunk:



#58 Atreiu

Atreiu
  • Member

  • 14,173 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 08 January 2019 - 13:27

Senna - fastest and most competitive through F1's richest era;

Prost - Senna's only true rival and perfect mirror image;

Fangio - the guy;

Clark - never saw him, but I believe the tales;

Hamilton - records and all and always always had tough teammates, no free meals;

Schumacher - records and all;

Lauda - almost a decade between titles against different generations;

Piquet - ground effects, turbos, NA engines, three titles and won races with whatever type of cars there were

Stewart - the guy;

Hakkinen - hamstrung by poor McLarens for too long, equal to Schumacher at his peak, but could not sustain it for so long.



#59 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 47,151 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 08 January 2019 - 13:44

Wikipedia say that he was both 2nd and 10th in that race.  :drunk:

 

No, the Marquis de Portago was 10th.
 



Advertisement

#60 E.B.

E.B.
  • Member

  • 4,251 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 08 January 2019 - 14:16

Wikipedia say that he was both 2nd and 10th in that race. :drunk:


Meh. South African GP in 1960, Stirling Moss was 1st and 2nd, without mid-race driver changes.

#61 Tsarwash

Tsarwash
  • Member

  • 10,993 posts
  • Joined: August 10

Posted 08 January 2019 - 14:56

Meh. South African GP in 1960, Stirling Moss was 1st and 2nd, without mid-race driver changes.

Driving two different cars at the same times, it seems, he is a talented person indeed.



#62 Spillage

Spillage
  • Member

  • 5,205 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 08 January 2019 - 15:29

Also there was little between Rubens and Jenson. In the defining year of 2009 (due to the championship being at stake), specially early season where the big points were for grabs with Brawn at their most competitive, Jenson won, but it was tight between the two of them overall.

Also Schumacher matched Rosberg in qualifying in 2012. The following season Hamilton could also only match Rosberg - but Schumacher was 43 in 2012.

I think Hamilton's speed is a bit overstated, to be honest. He's been outqualified by Bottas thirteen times in the past two seasons. By contrast, Senna was outqualified by Prost only four times in two years, Prost was outqualified by Lauda only twice in two years and Schumacher was outqualified by a teammate only once in his first four seasons.


Edited by Spillage, 08 January 2019 - 15:38.


#63 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 47,151 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 08 January 2019 - 15:39

I think Hamilton's speed is a bit overstated, to be honest. He's been outqualified by Bottas thirteen times in the past two seasons. By contrast, Senna was outqualified by Prost only four times in two years, Prost was outqualified by Lauda only twice in two years and Schumacher was outqualified by a teammate only once in his first four seasons.

 

But look at the times.  In the 1980s there was often a second difference between team-mates.  It was that last second that made the difference between the good and the great.  And of course you could have a number of goes at doing it, nowadays you get one or two.  (Contra the fifties and sixties, where the main reward of pole was not track position, with 3-2-3 grids and easy overtaking that advantage was nugatory, but prize money.)

 

Nowadays we're talking about tenths of a second.  And that can fluctuate almost randomly in qualifying.  It is in the race that the talent makes a difference - if drivers can overtake at least and show their real pace.

 

And in terms of outright speed, would anyone think Berger on a par with Senna?  Yet he set more fastest race laps. 
 



#64 CountDooku

CountDooku
  • Member

  • 9,460 posts
  • Joined: March 15

Posted 08 January 2019 - 17:39

As I said in the fastest man in F1 thread, it's VERY hard to judge the early F1 days with absolutely no downforce, skinny wooden tyres, and laps that were more set on individual bravery/balls than pure skill. In my opinion modern F1 started with the MP4/1 and any "greatest F1 driver" list that wants to maintain comparability has to delineate the sport into two ancient and modern eras.

 

Now for the greatest modern F1 driver, you have to take a lot of factors into account over and above just pure speed. The driver has to have:

  1. Outstanding outright speed (qualifying)
  2. Outstanding race pace
  3. Outstanding in changeable track conditions
  4. Outstanding at overtaking and defending
  5. Outstanding at tyre management
  6. Outstanding at race management/strategy
  7. Outstanding record vs good team mates
  8. Consistent within a weekend, a season, and across a career
  9. Adaptable to unpredictable races, cars, and team environments
  10. Outstanding at leading a team and developing a car
  11. Outstanding at "championship management" and playing the odds/long game
  12. Have "bouncebackability" from a bad session, race, or season
  13. Outstanding at being in the right place at the right time (right teams, right team mates, lucky in races, good reliability, etc.)
  14. Be seen as a fair driver who has the respect of their peers
  15. Have a diverse "body of work" as SF calls it (shown the above skills over a number of years, in a number of teams and against a number of team mates.

The drivers who score the highest in the most of these (vs the drivers they raced against but also vs the other legends) are surely the ones who have maximised everything out of the sport: on the track, off it, with their peers, with the fans and with the press. Only then can they be truly great.

Based on how they score on the above criteria, I rank the greatest modern drivers as follows (note: just because I don't tick the box in an area doesn't mean they are poor there. It's just not an outstanding strength vs their peers or even vs their other top attributes).

 

  • Lewis Hamilton - he scores top, top top marks (13/15) in just about every category. Only one where he doesn't stand out vs his peers is his race and tyre mgt (I was on the fence for tyre mgt as recently it's been excellent)
  • Micheal Schumacher - great all-round driver like Lewis (11/15) but he gets marked down for wheel-to-wheel racing, tyre management, record vs good teammates (this could be harsh but Micheal rarely had quality in his team), and fairness.
  • Ayrton Senna - probably the fastest driver ever. Scores 11/15 like Micheal but didn't have the longevity unfortunately so is below. Gets marked down for tyre mgt, race mgt, championship risk mgt, and fairness.
  • Fernando Alonso - As an all-rounder on the track, he's up there with Hamilton but gets marked down for the off-track stuff. 11/15 and gets marked down for outright speed, driving in changeable conditions, team leadership, and "luck".
  • Alain Prost - managed a season and career like no other. I appreciate him more as I get older. Scored 10/15 and got marked down for outright pace, driving in changeable conditions, wheel-to-wheel racing, adaptability, and fairness.
  •  
  • Big Gap
  •  
  • Seb Vettel - perhaps the luckiest man in F1 and surely one of its fastest. 6/15. Key strengths are outright speed, race pace, tyre management, race management, team leadership and luck.
  • Nico Rosberg - probably the most underrated driver of the modern era with a fantastic record against some top, top drivers. 5/15 with key strengths are consistency, team leadership, risk mgt, bouncebackability, and luck. He was also quick but not quick enough to get that on his scorecard!
  • Nigel Mansell - The Lion who got the crowds up on their feet. 4/15 with key strengths in outright speed, race pace, wheel-to-wheel racing, and fairness.
  • Mikka Hakkinen - Once his day was unbeatable, but his "day" wasn't long enough. Key strengths are outright speed and fairness.
  • Kimi Raikkonen - was a toss-up between him and Jense but Kimi was more successful and for longer too. Key strengths are risk mgt, fairness, and having a long and diverse career.

Edited by CountDooku, 08 January 2019 - 17:50.


#65 Radoye

Radoye
  • Member

  • 2,758 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 08 January 2019 - 18:03

By contrast, Senna was outqualified by Prost only four times in two years, Prost was outqualified by Lauda only twice in two years

 

Actually these two facts are connected.

 

After his accident Lauda stopped taking unnecessary risks and preferred to win races with minimum effort. He worked on perfecting a race setup and pretty much ignored qualifying (he still wanted the best possible place on the grid, but preferred to have a perfect car for Sunday rather than for Saturday). Prost, already very quick at that stage of his career, learned a lot from Niki while they were teammates and adjusted his approach towards racing enough to become known as The Professor (after Lauda being The Computer). Thus when Senna burst onto the scene in 1988 Prost let him take the poles and rather concentrated on having the better car on Sundays which is also shown in the number of fastest race laps each of them won. In the end the two opposite approaches towards the race weekend converged to give us some of the most epic on-track battles witnessed in the history of motorsport.



#66 garoidb

garoidb
  • Member

  • 6,046 posts
  • Joined: May 11

Posted 08 January 2019 - 18:29

Actually these two facts are connected.

 

After his accident Lauda stopped taking unnecessary risks and preferred to win races with minimum effort. He worked on perfecting a race setup and pretty much ignored qualifying (he still wanted the best possible place on the grid, but preferred to have a perfect car for Sunday rather than for Saturday). Prost, already very quick at that stage of his career, learned a lot from Niki while they were teammates and adjusted his approach towards racing enough to become known as The Professor (after Lauda being The Computer). Thus when Senna burst onto the scene in 1988 Prost let him take the poles and rather concentrated on having the better car on Sundays which is also shown in the number of fastest race laps each of them won. In the end the two opposite approaches towards the race weekend converged to give us some of the most epic on-track battles witnessed in the history of motorsport.

 

In both cases, I think the older driver realised that they weren't going to win pole position anyway, so it made sense to concentrate on race set-up. In 1988 this made particular sense, as it was possible to get a front row position easily enough anyway. 



#67 Taxi

Taxi
  • Member

  • 3,669 posts
  • Joined: October 03

Posted 08 January 2019 - 18:47

1- Schumacher: He was the best.  Fast like Hamiton, precise like Prost, obcessed like Senna. Dedicated to teams, and single handed brought Ferrari from the dead to give the most iconic team its most sucesseful period. Records left and right. Relentless on track. Master in the rain.  Was the reference for more than 10 years. 

2- Hamilton: He has the conditions to retire with all the main records or at least to equal them. He's complete: extremly fast, good racer, excelent in the wet and a plus against Schumacher: fair on track fights. Had very strong team mates and overall beat them all. 

3- Prost: It's always a tight fight with Senna because the brazilian was naturaly faster but in races Prost was just as fast if not faster and he was less error prone and impulsive. Also great team mate batle wining record [Lauda, Mansell, Rosberg, Senna, Arnoux...] 

4- Senna: The fastest ever. Obcessed with winning and being the best. Greatest 1980's and 90's myth. Was overagressive and not respecful of his coleagues when fighting on track. 

5- Fangio: hard to evaluate 50's and 60's drivers because the oposition was not as professional hence the diference was bigger, but his track record suggest he was head an shoulders above the rest. 

6 -Clark: Another case of being a king in a time were competiviness was a bit random. "only" two titles but a career cut short. 

7 - Vettel: Sure no one loves him because people always say he was flatered by dominant Red Bull. What about Schumcaher 2000-2004  Ferrraris, Hamilton 2014-2018 Mercedes or Senna/Prost 1988-1990 McLarens? It's a double standart. Vettel is an imense talent and conquered everything  very young. His detractors always bring 2014 to put him down and forget 4 titles, 2 2nd places 55 poles and 52 wins. He's a bit error prone though

8- Alonso. Underachieved having in consideration his talent. Has a very good team mate batle record. Fast in every circunstance. As a driver complete and fair on track. However his antics inside the teams to gain advantages got him in trouble to the point of being considered toxic. 

9- Stewart. Classic driver with great record. 

10- Piquet: Realy hard between Piquet and Lauda. Piquet has my personal preference, for winning with severall types of cars and for  being competitive till 40. Had exquisit technical knowleadge. Really fast, and efective. Didn't crack under pressure.  Underrated. 

 

11-15: Lauda, Hakkinen, Mansell, Fittipaldi, Rindt. 


Edited by Taxi, 08 January 2019 - 20:03.


#68 Radoye

Radoye
  • Member

  • 2,758 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 08 January 2019 - 19:02

In both cases, I think the older driver realised that they weren't going to win pole position anyway, so it made sense to concentrate on race set-up. In 1988 this made particular sense, as it was possible to get a front row position easily enough anyway. 

 

But Lauda was doing the same thing in 1977 already. He was the first driver in F1 who had the ability to put down a perfect lap without leaving anything on the table. Prior to the Nurburgring crash he was known to come out to qualify early, put down a fast time then get out of the car, unzip his racing overalls and sit on the pitlane wall drinking a coke so that everyone still on the track sees him, as if the job was already done. This drove his rival crazy and often forced them into taking unnecessary risks and making mistakes trying to beat his time. After his crash he completely changed his approach towards racing and preferred to win driving as slowly as possible. While still capable of putting down a 100% lap when absolutely necessary he would rather not do it and collected points by having a car that was kinder on tires and more driveable with varying fuel loads than his opposition. So he spent his entire Friday and Saturday preparing for Sundays p because that was the day when points were given out.

And the change in Prost's racing philosophy can be observed much earlier than 1988. Before teaming up with Lauda in 1984. he was known as one of the outright quickest young guns in F1, but somewhat of a car breaker (not that those Renaults needed much to get them to break) - and then he turned into The Professor, known for his systematic approach without taking too many risks and able to drive around car issues.

Maybe it's just a coincidence - but maybe not?



#69 Spillage

Spillage
  • Member

  • 5,205 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 08 January 2019 - 19:20

Actually these two facts are connected.

 

After his accident Lauda stopped taking unnecessary risks and preferred to win races with minimum effort. He worked on perfecting a race setup and pretty much ignored qualifying (he still wanted the best possible place on the grid, but preferred to have a perfect car for Sunday rather than for Saturday). Prost, already very quick at that stage of his career, learned a lot from Niki while they were teammates and adjusted his approach towards racing enough to become known as The Professor (after Lauda being The Computer). Thus when Senna burst onto the scene in 1988 Prost let him take the poles and rather concentrated on having the better car on Sundays which is also shown in the number of fastest race laps each of them won. In the end the two opposite approaches towards the race weekend converged to give us some of the most epic on-track battles witnessed in the history of motorsport.

No doubt there is an element of this, but I think we should be careful of overemphasising it. Prost had outqualified Johansson 16 times out of 16 in 1987 and before him had dominated both Rosberg and Lauda. Yet in the first three qualifying sessions of 1988, Prost couldn't get within 6 tenths of Senna. Was he prepared to sacrifice pole that early in the season, when his own record was so good? Or was Senna just stupendously quick?

 

Probably the answer is a mixture of both. I wouldn't say it was as simple as that Prost 'let him take the poles' though.



#70 PlatenGlass

PlatenGlass
  • Member

  • 1,589 posts
  • Joined: June 14

Posted 08 January 2019 - 19:53

I think Lauda couldn't get close to Prost and Prost couldn't get close to Senna in qualifying. I think it's human nature for them or their fans to try to soften the blow by giving other reasons, and maybe once they knew they were beaten they didn't put quite as much into the qualifying effort but I honestly don't think the effect would have been that great. And certainly not being able to beat Prost in qualifying wouldn't explain Lauda qualifying an average of about 7th in 1984 and 107th in 1985 (only one of them was an exaggeration).

Anyway, Prost generally had the better of Lauda in the races too. It was just that as the McLaren was a dominant race car and they could generally finish 1-2 that a retirement for Prost proved more costly. Similarly a less dominant Williams in 1987 would probably have given Mansell the title.

And with Senna/Prost, Prost rarely fought on equal terms with Senna in 1989. And as above, a less dominant McLaren would probably have given Senna both titles. Those big qualifying gaps would have meant several grid positions under other circumstances and Prost would have been far less likely to be able to make it back up.

#71 Radoye

Radoye
  • Member

  • 2,758 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 08 January 2019 - 19:54

Senna was most definitely stupendously quick, likely the quickest ever over a single lap. But at the same time he was obsessed with being fastest in every session so his cars were set up for qualifying on Fridays and Saturdays and he would do most of his race setup work on Sunday morning during the short warmup session. This meant that come the race Prost had the faster and better suited car, which shows when you look at their fastest race lap times. As for the finishing positions they came out pretty much equally matched despite their completely opposite approach to the race weekend.



#72 Taxi

Taxi
  • Member

  • 3,669 posts
  • Joined: October 03

Posted 08 January 2019 - 20:02

To prove that, i don't know if you remember there was a morning session  before the race called "warm up" and Prost was always the best. He focused on the race set up. 



#73 Radoye

Radoye
  • Member

  • 2,758 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 08 January 2019 - 20:10

I think Lauda couldn't get close to Prost and Prost couldn't get close to Senna in qualifying. I think it's human nature for them or their fans to try to soften the blow by giving other reasons, and maybe once they knew they were beaten they didn't put quite as much into the qualifying effort but I honestly don't think the effect would have been that great. And certainly not being able to beat Prost in qualifying wouldn't explain Lauda qualifying an average of about 7th in 1984 and 107th in 1985 (only one of them was an exaggeration).

Anyway, Prost generally had the better of Lauda in the races too. It was just that as the McLaren was a dominant race car and they could generally finish 1-2 that a retirement for Prost proved more costly. Similarly a less dominant Williams in 1987 would probably have given Mansell the title.

And with Senna/Prost, Prost rarely fought on equal terms with Senna in 1989. And as above, a less dominant McLaren would probably have given Senna both titles. Those big qualifying gaps would have meant several grid positions under other circumstances and Prost would have been far less likely to be able to make it back up.

 

First of all, i was a Senna fan rather than Prost fan, and always liked Sennas do-or-die approach better, but i'm willing to give Prost his due. I think that this rivalry was what made Senna into an absolute legend he was, both in the good way and in the not so good way, and without Prost as his arch nemesis he himself wouldn't be able to achieve these same levels of performance. They pushed each other and fed off of each other, which made their era so great.

And Lauda was already over the hill when he and Prost teamed up, but Prost himself always emphasized how much he learned from Niki especially regarding his approach to racing. When the two of them met The Professor was born.



#74 PlatenGlass

PlatenGlass
  • Member

  • 1,589 posts
  • Joined: June 14

Posted 08 January 2019 - 22:57

First of all, i was a Senna fan rather than Prost fan, and always liked Sennas do-or-die approach better, but i'm willing to give Prost his due. I think that this rivalry was what made Senna into an absolute legend he was, both in the good way and in the not so good way, and without Prost as his arch nemesis he himself wouldn't be able to achieve these same levels of performance. They pushed each other and fed off of each other, which made their era so great.

And Lauda was already over the hill when he and Prost teamed up, but Prost himself always emphasized how much he learned from Niki especially regarding his approach to racing. When the two of them met The Professor was born.

I was actually a Prost fan at the time, but looking back as an adult I do think Senna had the edge. But yes, Prost was still a brilliant driver, and the gap was much closer in the races. I don't think Prost would have been an unreasonable champion in 1988, but I think Senna deserved it more in 1989 (although there were a couple of unnecessary collisions).

And I agree about Lauda being past his best when he met Prost. I definitely think that Prost was better overall in 1984 and a bit unlucky there (even if he cost himself points along the way), but that 70s Lauda might have been a different prospect.

#75 Dan333SP

Dan333SP
  • Member

  • 2,682 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 08 January 2019 - 22:59

First of all, i was a Senna fan rather than Prost fan, and always liked Sennas do-or-die approach better, but i'm willing to give Prost his due. I think that this rivalry was what made Senna into an absolute legend he was, both in the good way and in the not so good way, and without Prost as his arch nemesis he himself wouldn't be able to achieve these same levels of performance. They pushed each other and fed off of each other, which made their era so great.

And Lauda was already over the hill when he and Prost teamed up, but Prost himself always emphasized how much he learned from Niki especially regarding his approach to racing. When the two of them met The Professor was born.

 

It's always interesting how people always refer to Lauda as "over the hill" during his Mclaren stint. He is almost exactly 20 years older than Schumacher, so he would have been the same age as Michael during his 1984 season as Michael was during his 2004 season. MSC was still absolutely obliterating everyone at that age. I don't think it was just the car, he was still exceptional in the 2006 Ferrari which was up against a fairly evenly matched Renault in Alonso's hands.

I guess MSC 1.0 kinda re-wrote the rulebook for how drivers age.



#76 noikeee

noikeee
  • Member

  • 14,814 posts
  • Joined: February 06

Posted 08 January 2019 - 23:08

It's always interesting how people always refer to Lauda as "over the hill" during his Mclaren stint. He is almost exactly 20 years older than Schumacher, so he would have been the same age as Michael during his 1984 season as Michael was during his 2004 season. MSC was still absolutely obliterating everyone at that age. I don't think it was just the car, he was still exceptional in the 2006 Ferrari which was up against a fairly evenly matched Renault in Alonso's hands.
I guess MSC 1.0 kinda re-wrote the rulebook for how drivers age.


Not every driver ages the same, some have earlier or later peaks.

Lauda also had that couple of years away from the sport, drivers tend to find it hard to come back at the same level after you've had a break.

#77 E.B.

E.B.
  • Member

  • 4,251 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 08 January 2019 - 23:20

Not every driver ages the same, some have earlier or later peaks.

Lauda also had that couple of years away from the sport, drivers tend to find it hard to come back at the same level after you've had a break.


Exactly. Lauda 2.0 > MSC 2.0

#78 boillot

boillot
  • Member

  • 603 posts
  • Joined: June 18

Posted 08 January 2019 - 23:26

Lauda was actually the only driver that managed a proper comeback. One may say that Prost won a title after a break as well but actually, the break was shorter and he was not that impressive in what was the best car in 1993. By then, Senna had the clear edge, something that I don't think was the case in 1988-1991, despite the popular belief.



#79 weareracing

weareracing
  • Member

  • 972 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 08 January 2019 - 23:38

If you ever saw him race.......

No.1 by a country mile Jim Clark.

Please, NOT team orders Michael Schumacher.



Advertisement

#80 garoidb

garoidb
  • Member

  • 6,046 posts
  • Joined: May 11

Posted 08 January 2019 - 23:41

Lauda was actually the only driver that managed a proper comeback. One may say that Prost won a title after a break as well but actually, the break was shorter and he was not that impressive in what was the best car in 1993. By then, Senna had the clear edge, something that I don't think was the case in 1988-1991, despite the popular belief.

 

Prost tested for Ligier in early 1992 and also for Williams in late September 1992, so his longest time out of a contemporary F1 during his break car was about seven months. Lauda was close to two years.



#81 noikeee

noikeee
  • Member

  • 14,814 posts
  • Joined: February 06

Posted 09 January 2019 - 00:01

Lauda was actually the only driver that managed a proper comeback. One may say that Prost won a title after a break as well but actually, the break was shorter and he was not that impressive in what was the best car in 1993. By then, Senna had the clear edge, something that I don't think was the case in 1988-1991, despite the popular belief.

 

Eh, of course Lauda won a title so the comeback was clearly successful by any measure, but I'm not so sure it was any more proper or more convincing than Prost's return in 93 which also ended with a title but also looked like the full pace wasn't there anymore, so they're really two very similar comebacks - not fully unconvincing but title winners which is what matters. Lauda's 84 title seemed to be more reliability than anything else with Prost quicker, Watson could outdrive him in earlier years (certainly came much closer to the 82 title than him), and in 85 Prost just completely blew him apart although it was Lauda's turn for his reliability to disappear.

 

Now re Lauda we're forgetting a pretty tiny massive detail: that he was scarred for life in that horrendous accident in the Nurburgring. Of course he won another title for Ferrari the very next year after the accident so it's a little debatable whether he lost any speed, but surely it can't have helped his performance, health, and motivation for the rest of his career.



#82 JG

JG
  • Member

  • 186 posts
  • Joined: March 00

Posted 09 January 2019 - 07:56

1950's: Fangio, Ascari, Moss

1960's: Clark, Stewart, Brabham

1970's: Lauda, Fittipaldi, Peterson

1980's: Senna, Prost, Piquet

1990's: Schumacher, Hakkinen, Hill

2000's: Alonso, Raikkonen, Montoya

2010's: Hamilton, Vettel



#83 Victor

Victor
  • Member

  • 555 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 09 January 2019 - 08:37

A little out of topic, here goes my top 10 of the best of their time:

Fangio 1950-1957

Moss 1958-1961

Clark 1962-1967

Stewart 1968-1973

Lauda 1974-1978

Villeneuve 1979-1982

Prost 1983-1992

Schumacher 1993-2005

Alonso 2006-2013

Hamilton 2014-2018



#84 PlayboyRacer

PlayboyRacer
  • Member

  • 1,464 posts
  • Joined: March 16

Posted 09 January 2019 - 08:38

Hakkinen - hamstrung by poor McLarens for too long, equal to Schumacher at his peak, but could not sustain it for so long.

Just curious... as far as I am aware... Hakkinen never excelled in the wet, never dominated a wet race nor did he ever win a race without one of the fastest cars on the grid. Most of them in the outright best car (fyi I am not counting Jerez for obvious reasons).

So where is he 'equal to Schumacher at his peak?' A man who dominated a number of wet races, even won championships without a car the best of the field... and won races when he shouldn't have.

Frankly I don't see them in the same class. There is alot of rose tint when it comes to Mika Hakkinen. Being polite, having Schumachers off track respect and being finnish clearly wins alot of people over!

#85 CountDooku

CountDooku
  • Member

  • 9,460 posts
  • Joined: March 15

Posted 09 January 2019 - 08:49

1- Schumacher: He was the best.  Fast like Hamiton, precise like Prost, obcessed like Senna. Dedicated to teams, and single handed brought Ferrari from the dead to give the most iconic team its most sucesseful period. Records left and right. Relentless on track. Master in the rain.  Was the reference for more than 10 years. 

2- Hamilton: He has the conditions to retire with all the main records or at least to equal them. He's complete: extremly fast, good racer, excelent in the wet and a plus against Schumacher: fair on track fights. Had very strong team mates and overall beat them all. 

3- Prost: It's always a tight fight with Senna because the brazilian was naturaly faster but in races Prost was just as fast if not faster and he was less error prone and impulsive. Also great team mate batle wining record [Lauda, Mansell, Rosberg, Senna, Arnoux...] 

4- Senna: The fastest ever. Obcessed with winning and being the best. Greatest 1980's and 90's myth. Was overagressive and not respecful of his coleagues when fighting on track. 

5- Fangio: hard to evaluate 50's and 60's drivers because the oposition was not as professional hence the diference was bigger, but his track record suggest he was head an shoulders above the rest. 

6 -Clark: Another case of being a king in a time were competiviness was a bit random. "only" two titles but a career cut short. 

7 - Vettel: Sure no one loves him because people always say he was flatered by dominant Red Bull. What about Schumcaher 2000-2004  Ferrraris, Hamilton 2014-2018 Mercedes or Senna/Prost 1988-1990 McLarens? It's a double standart. Vettel is an imense talent and conquered everything  very young. His detractors always bring 2014 to put him down and forget 4 titles, 2 2nd places 55 poles and 52 wins. He's a bit error prone though

8- Alonso. Underachieved having in consideration his talent. Has a very good team mate batle record. Fast in every circunstance. As a driver complete and fair on track. However his antics inside the teams to gain advantages got him in trouble to the point of being considered toxic. 

9- Stewart. Classic driver with great record. 

10- Piquet: Realy hard between Piquet and Lauda. Piquet has my personal preference, for winning with severall types of cars and for  being competitive till 40. Had exquisit technical knowleadge. Really fast, and efective. Didn't crack under pressure.  Underrated. 

 

11-15: Lauda, Hakkinen, Mansell, Fittipaldi, Rindt. 

 

Good list that I can go with, though Vettel is waaaaaaaaaay too high. I'd bump him down to just before Piquet.



#86 PlatenGlass

PlatenGlass
  • Member

  • 1,589 posts
  • Joined: June 14

Posted 09 January 2019 - 12:10

Just curious... as far as I am aware... Hakkinen never excelled in the wet, never dominated a wet race nor did he ever win a race without one of the fastest cars on the grid. Most of them in the outright best car (fyi I am not counting Jerez for obvious reasons).

So where is he 'equal to Schumacher at his peak?' A man who dominated a number of wet races, even won championships without a car the best of the field... and won races when he shouldn't have.

Frankly I don't see them in the same class. There is alot of rose tint when it comes to Mika Hakkinen. Being polite, having Schumachers off track respect and being finnish clearly wins alot of people over!

I think the thing with Hakkinen is that some people argue that he was marginally faster than Schumacher and they use that as their starting point. That's debatable anyway, but I don't think it's that relevant because Hakkinen often wasn't performing at his peak. He was basically the exact opposite of what you'd call a "complete" driver. He was very fast when things were going his way, but everything followed from that - he didn't have other strengths to compensate when things weren't perfect. I also remember reading in about 1994 or so Martin Brundle said that he was very fast but lacked the other attributes required to be world champion. His conclusion was ultimately proved wrong, but I don't think his thinking was entirely wrong.

#87 Currahee

Currahee
  • Member

  • 454 posts
  • Joined: November 11

Posted 09 January 2019 - 12:31

I think the thing with Hakkinen is that some people argue that he was marginally faster than Schumacher and they use that as their starting point. That's debatable anyway, but I don't think it's that relevant because Hakkinen often wasn't performing at his peak. He was basically the exact opposite of what you'd call a "complete" driver. He was very fast when things were going his way, but everything followed from that - he didn't have other strengths to compensate when things weren't perfect. I also remember reading in about 1994 or so Martin Brundle said that he was very fast but lacked the other attributes required to be world champion. His conclusion was ultimately proved wrong, but I don't think his thinking was entirely wrong.


Of course his thinking was entirely wrong. He didn't think he'd be WC and he was.

#88 messy

messy
  • Member

  • 2,825 posts
  • Joined: October 15

Posted 09 January 2019 - 12:39

Remember reading quite a lot about Hakkinen during that era, the feeling being that he was a pure, seat of the pants racer with a lot of speed but in other aspects, Coulthard was considered stronger. I wish I could remember who said this, but can't. That Coulthard was generally cleverer, better at strategising, thinking through a race, driving around any issues, but Mika was faster. In 1996/7 when the car was unreliable and inconsistent that pace deficit to Mika wasn't always apparent at all (see also Button v Alonso 2015/16) but as soon as McLaren hit the jackpot with the car, suddenly there was a difference. And if Hakkinen was leading from the front, the other stuff wasn't as important. 



#89 Lotusse7en

Lotusse7en
  • Member

  • 54 posts
  • Joined: November 12

Posted 09 January 2019 - 13:36

.. and won races when he shouldn't have.
 

Like Australia 1994 ,  Austria 2002 ...



#90 Nonesuch

Nonesuch
  • Member

  • 13,797 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 09 January 2019 - 14:09

Good list that I can go with, though Vettel is waaaaaaaaaay too high. I'd bump him down to just before Piquet.

 

Waaaaaaaaay down two places to just below Stewart and the guy from whose grasp he snatched no fewer than two titles. :cool:

 

 ;)



#91 CountDooku

CountDooku
  • Member

  • 9,460 posts
  • Joined: March 15

Posted 09 January 2019 - 14:40

Waaaaaaaaay down two places to just below Stewart and the guy from whose grasp he snatched no fewer than two titles. :cool:

 

 ;)

 

The gap between Seb and those above him is huge. He's an amazing driver but the ones above him are proper legends, like a Messi vs Neymar.



#92 Taxi

Taxi
  • Member

  • 3,669 posts
  • Joined: October 03

Posted 09 January 2019 - 15:04

Vettel is at the top 5 of all major F1 records. I can't understand why people underrate him so much. The guy gave Toro Rosso it's first pole and win, Red Bull its first win, 4 titles that were never conquered again, was as dominant as other greats at a very young age. If it wasn't for his 2017/18 errors he could even be higher. Being the Ferrari lead driver it's not as easy as being the mercedes or Red Bull leading driver. It's another league. He's been strugling a bit [granted] with the pressure but he'll get there. Alonso and Schumacher went for similar process at Ferrari. 

 

As much as I like Mika, Piquet or respect Alonso, Lauda and Stewart, you can't have a CV like that without being seriously good. One of the best.  



#93 Nonesuch

Nonesuch
  • Member

  • 13,797 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 09 January 2019 - 15:06

The gap between Seb and those above him is huge. He's an amazing driver but the ones above him are proper legends, like a Messi vs Neymar.


Meh! Even Nico Rosberg won more World titles* that those two. :cool:

I'm not sure any of those are legends. Succesful, yes - but to each his own! :up:

*Unless you're one of the 10 people that counts the FIFA Club Cup!

#94 Nonesuch

Nonesuch
  • Member

  • 13,797 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 09 January 2019 - 15:08

Vettel is at the top 5 of all major F1 records. I can't understand why people underrate him so much.

 

Because he ruined the second half of Fernando Alonso's F1 career, and his Red Bull reign made Hamilton drive around without a second title until he joined the most dominant team in F1 history.

 

And, well, he also does some pretty dumb things once or twice each year. That's never a good look. At least Michael had the smarts to do so after wrapping up the titles.



#95 CountDooku

CountDooku
  • Member

  • 9,460 posts
  • Joined: March 15

Posted 09 January 2019 - 15:13

Vettel is at the top 5 of all major F1 records. I can't understand why people underrate him so much. The guy gave Toro Rosso it's first pole and win, Red Bull its first win, 4 titles that were never conquered again, was as dominant as other greats at a very young age. If it wasn't for his 2017/18 errors he could even be higher. Being the Ferrari lead driver it's not as easy as being the mercedes or Red Bull leading driver. It's another league. He's been strugling a bit [granted] with the pressure but he'll get there. Alonso and Schumacher went for similar process at Ferrari. 

 

As much as I like Mika, Piquet or respect Alonso, Lauda and Stewart, you can't have a CV like that without being seriously good. One of the best.  

 

I rate Vettel quite highly, but he's a step below Fangio, Clark, Stewart, Prost, Senna, Schumacher , Hamilton and even Alonso.

 

Meh! Even Nico Rosberg won more World titles* that those two. :cool:

I'm not sure any of those are legends. Succesful, yes - but to each his own! :up:

*Unless you're one of the 10 people that counts the FIFA Club Cup!

 

Messi & Neymar or the quoted F1 drivers? :p 



#96 Taxi

Taxi
  • Member

  • 3,669 posts
  • Joined: October 03

Posted 09 January 2019 - 15:13

Yep, I think it's more about being anoyingly good/party spoiler of the so called stars Alonso/Hamilton that made him so hated. I remember people constantly downgrading his wins because the Red Bull was so superior [yet the car was less dominant than any Mercedes 2014-2018 in 2010 and 2012 and he still won it. 

 

Double standards. 



#97 Nonesuch

Nonesuch
  • Member

  • 13,797 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 09 January 2019 - 15:19

Messi & Neymar or the quoted F1 drivers? :p

 

I think Alonso has two titles, Stewart has three - so, the American footballers it is!  :cool: 



#98 Radoye

Radoye
  • Member

  • 2,758 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 09 January 2019 - 16:13

Like Australia 1994 ,  Austria 2002 ...

 

Actually Mansell won that one, his last F1 win.



#99 Oho

Oho
  • Member

  • 9,568 posts
  • Joined: November 98

Posted 09 January 2019 - 16:20

Just curious... as far as I am aware... Hakkinen never excelled in the wet..

 

Well he and Schumacher essentially lapped the field at Nürnburgring in 2000, Häkkinen got within three or four seconds but gave up getting stuck behind Barrichello and Coulthard scrapping for third almost a lap down as pass in the closing laps was very unlikely. If it wasn't for a botched pit stop he'd had a good chance of winning that one. He also had over 40 seconds on Schumacher despite his off track excursion at Silverstone in 98 when safety car was brought on track. He was unable to challenge Schumacher after restart probably due to broken front wing. That race was manipulated  as hell, a self described Ferrari fan installed as race steward made sure Schumachar was not given a penalty for passing cars under full course yellow. Häkkinen also did pretty well finishing second  Magny Cours in 99 where he started, was it from 16th after rain effected qualifying (he did not get a lap in while it was dry). He actually charged through the field twice having lost several positions at restart after botched attempt at passing Barrichello out of Adelaide hair pin....

 

Häkkinen was pretty good in wet, his weak spot was 'greasy' track at the onset of rain probably at least partially due to his classic driving style not involving much trail braking unlike Schumacher.


Edited by Oho, 09 January 2019 - 16:36.


Advertisement

#100 Taxi

Taxi
  • Member

  • 3,669 posts
  • Joined: October 03

Posted 09 January 2019 - 16:33

Changing conditions was Hakkinen's problem. His classic unforgiving lines and braking wouldn't make him adaptable enough with random grip . When it was constantly raining he was good. Also think 1998 silverstone was stolen win by Ferrrari (FIA). It wouldn't happen today. 


Edited by Taxi, 09 January 2019 - 16:36.