102 replies to this topic

[F1Frog]

Deleted because I no longer agree with this opinion. I had weighted my ranking more towards considering recent drivers to be the greatest ever, ignoring the fact that telemetry makes it far easier for the F1 drivers nowadays.

 

I now believe mathematical models aren't particularly useful for this reason. The best way to rank drivers in my opinion is purely subjectively, and my subjective opinion is that Jim Clark is the greatest ever.

Edited by F1Frog, 17 November 2022 - 11:04.

[PlatenGlass]

The effort you must have gone to to produce a top 200! I think it gets a bit meaningless after a point though. The lower you go down the order, the more arbitrary it becomes deciding to place x ahead of y or vice versa but I'd be curious to know what you based it on.

 

I also would disagree with some of the placings, but we'll leave that for now.

[George Costanza]

Hmmm. I disagree with quite a bit. But Michael is IMHO the best simply because where he took Ferrari and look at what happened to Ferrari before him and after.... And Montoya ranked lower than Fisichella? That's not making sense.

Why is Graham Hill ranked so low? He was just as good as Jackie Stewart...

Edited by George Costanza, 19 September 2021 - 01:58.

[john aston]

Where to start ?  The fact that Romain Grosjean is better than, say , Phil Hill , Lando Norris better than Pedro Rodriguez or Lance Stroll (yup, Lance Stroll) was better than Mark Donohue? Or that Enrique Bernoldi or Alex Rossi are on the list at all?. I don't doubt the equation  produced that result but the very fact it did so means it's almost laughably wrong 

[sabrejet]

As soon as you put any qualifying statement on a list it becomes rather pointless (in this case "F1 driver"). I wouldn't put Bernd Schneider in THIS list, but he'd certainly be in my Top 200 drivers (no qualifying statement) list. And John Aston's point about Mark Donohue and Pedro Rodriguez puts the validity of an "F1" list in serious doubt anyway. And Stirling Moss at No.9?

[uechtel]

Where the hell is Luigi Villoresi. And I also strongly miss Jean-Pierre Wimille among the top 20.

[F1Frog]

There is no equation to this ranking. While I have looked at some mathematical models such as F1metrics and based it around them, this is still a subjective ranking. Yes, some of the minor placings are less meaningful, most drivers outside the top 100 could move forward or back around ten places. The general answer of what it is based on is what positions I think the drivers would finish in a championship where they were all in equal cars, assuming it could somehow be standardised so that Hamilton's Mercedes now is equal to Fangio's Mercedes then. There are a few exceptions to this, as I believe Michael Schumacher would win that championship, but have dropped him to second because of Jerez 1997 (and others). I don't really want someone who crashed into another driver deliberately as the 'greatest', but on pure driving ability, I think he was. As I said, the top four are all extremely close and I am undecided on the order of them, so I might have Schumacher number one anyway. Also, the likes of Mark Donohue are penalised because he only drove in fourteen races, so he has a small sample size in terms of how good he really was. Fagioli is much higher even though he only raced in seven, but he was teammate to two known quantities in the best car in that time, so there is a clearer picture of his ability. Had Donohue survived to race for a full career, he likely would have been 100 places higher, but as it stands, he didn't drive in enough races. I could have put him a bit higher. And the list is a best F1 drivers list, meaning the Formula 1 championship between 1950 and 2021. It doesn't look the same as a general 'drivers' list, but I don't know enough about other series to make a general drivers list. It does not make it pointless to not include other series. In fact, I would say it is arguably better because then it is very clear which races from history are taken into account, and there are still over 1000 of them. I should note that the Indy500 from the 50s was not included.

I will now justify my placings for some of the other drivers in the list. Remember that in a list of 200 drivers, there is almost always something you will disagree with. That doesn't make it laughably wrong.

Giancarlo Fisichella/Juan Pablo Montoya - the simple answer here is that I rate Alonso higher than Raikkonen. Also, remember Fisichella was often called 'a good driver of bad cars and a bad driver of good cars' so his time at Renault were not his best seasons.

Graham Hill - most mathematical models rate him a lot lower than Schumacher. I've reduced the gap between the two because I don't think these are perfect, but I think they are accurate enough to mean that Hill cannot be on par with Stewart. Stewart was a rookie when they were teammates, while Hill was already an experienced driver.

Romain Grosjean/Lando Norris/Lance Stroll - here, it is just that I think the current crop of drivers are the best there have ever been in F1. There are far more other series and junior formulae now, which means to make it to the top level you have to be better than you had to be in the past. Norris, I think, could one day be one of the greats and I actually would now move him higher than that. Grosjean made a lot of mistakes but was extremely quick, look at his time at Lotus. Stroll may not really be good enough for today's F1, but he is still better than certain drivers from the past. Rodriguez could have been a bit higher, maybe, but I don't think he was better than Norris. And it is only a F1 driver list. Mark Donohue I already explained, but he could have been a bit higher. Phil Hill is rated lowly because F1metrics calculates the Ferrari in 1961 to be the most dominant car of all time, so he should have beaten the likes of Clark by a greater amount.

Enrique Bernoldi - matched up well to Verstappen as teammates, despite being a rookie.

Alex Rossi - to be fair, I'd forgotten he was on the list. With only five races, he probably shouldn't have been there.

Luigi Villoresi - he is at position 103.

[LittleChris]

If the 1961 Ferrari was the most dominant car of all time I'd love to see where the 1988 McLaren or 1992 Williams rate !

[small block]

"I think the current crop of drivers are the best there have ever been in F1. There are far more other series and junior formulae now, which means to make it to the top level you have to be better than you had to be in the past."

 

Not if daddy can buy you into a team and the later buy you a team...

[Charlieman]

it is just that I think the current crop of drivers are the best there have ever been in F1.

Drivers who had won or would win a WDC race, competing in the 1966 F1 championship: McLaren, Clark, Rodriguez P, Brabham, Hulme, Ginther, Rindt, Surtees, Hill G, Stewart, Siffert, Bandini, Hill P, Gurney, Ickx, Beltoise, Ireland. That's more than the number of drivers allowed to start the Monaco GP that season...

[Catalina Park]

The only fair way to rank F1 drivers is by height.

[Glengavel]

A F1 list that starts with a Hamilton/Schumacher 1-2 could be labelled "most successful", but not "best of".

[2F-001]

And it is only a F1 driver list. 

So, how did Ascari get in there at No.6?

[Charlieman]

The only fair way to rank F1 drivers is by height.

Prejudice against Art Merzario astounds me 

[opplock]

The only fair way to rank F1 drivers is by height.

 

That does have the advantage of being based on fact. 

 

Stirling Moss beat "the most dominant car in F1 history" twice. If true that alone must earn him the number one position. The 1988 McLaren would have won every race had Senna not had a brain fade at Monza. I saw the car race at Imola. It was in a different league to everything else.   

Edited by opplock, 19 September 2021 - 10:20.

[sabrejet]

"I think the current crop of drivers are the best there have ever been in F1. There are far more other series and junior formulae now, which means to make it to the top level you have to be better than you had to be in the past."

 

That is a massive piece of hyperbole which deserves a strong challenge. Most F1 drivers of today will not have won the Mille Miglia or a hill climb. Neither will they have participated in a rally raid or driven in the Carrera Panamericana. They won't have taken the wheel of a tin-top or competed at Meadowdale. Or done an oval, much less a super speedway. Or won on two wheels. 

 

Undoubtedly, some modern F1 drivers are very good, but of the 26-odd drivers who turn up at any given F1 Grand Prix, I doubt that more than five at any given time could be considered in a global trawl of 'best' drivers on that day.

 

Now, as then, you will have some truly great drivers (fast in good or bad machinery) but they have little chance to prove it. 

 

And as stated, we still have drivers in F1 who mainly got into that elite group because of the cash they could bring and not so much for their talent. 

 

So a 'best in F1' list is like listing the Best Brand of Baked Beans.

 

By the way, Brian Redman and Vic Elford are missing from the top half of your list. 

[2F-001]

On first reading, I though Catalina's comment was just a joke - but I realise now wise and clever it was.

[john winfield]

Prejudice against Art Merzario astounds me 

 

With his Marlboro hat on he makes the top ten.

[john winfield]

 

So a 'best in F1' list is like listing the Best Brand of Baked Beans.

 

 

 

Waitrose own brand are very good. They may not be fully-fledged works beans but I believe them to be a customer variation of one of the leading constructors' designs.

[Michael Ferner]

I prefer organic, like the ones by Alnatura...

[Atreiu]

This list is absurd.

[Bikr7549]

With all due respect, something as disconnected to any reasonsble standards such as this topic belongs in the RC section.

[RobertE]

Lists like this are always troublesome. There are drivers who did things with cars which had no place on the grid and there are drivers who, given the right car could do whatever they pleased. Naturally, we all have our favourites, but that should not need qualifying. I only saw Hill once, at Thruxton, for example, and he crashed out, but he has to rank highly, for example. I never saw Clark, but his record speaks for itself,

so good luck with it.

[68targa]

They are all highly skilled and far far better than anything I could do behind the wheel which is why I enjoy this sport.

[PRD]

Posting that list in TNF is as Sir Humphrey would say to Jim Hacker..."brave" 

[chr1s]

Alonso better than Prost? I don't think so....

[AJCee]

The only fair way to rank F1 drivers is by height.

I’ll regret asking… who was the tallest? Christian Danner must be ‘up’ there.

[opplock]

I found a website that claims Hans Joachim Stuck was tallest at 194cm. That puts him 175 positions higher than the OPs ranking. 

[wolf sun]

What other than convention makes you assume that the tallest driver would top the height list? 

[Bikr7549]

Well this certainly puts Schumi near the bottom of the list, he is only 69 tall. Inconsistent units perhaps but that fits ok into this topic.

Edited by Bikr7549, 19 September 2021 - 23:28.

[Dave Ware]

I think that any system that puts America's own Dan Gurney (6' 4") at or near the top of such a list is a good system. 

 

We also have this for reference:

 

https://forums.autos...tallest-driver/

 

TNF seems to have anticipated this...

[opplock]

What other than convention makes you assume that the tallest driver would top the height list? 

 

You've opened another can of worms. Ukyo Katayama climbed Everest which I suspect puts him at top of the height list but was no longer in F1 at the time. Has a taller F1 driver climbed Everest?  

[Catalina Park]

Prejudice against Art Merzario astounds me 

With my system there is no best or worst, just shortest to tallest. So that places Arturo at the top of the list.
Imagine how good he could have been if he could have seen where he was going...

[john aston]

Yet another example of chronological superiority-  to believe  that the current crop is the best ever because there's lot of different racing series. Reductio ab absurdum that means we can discount Shakespeare as a playwright because he didn't get too much  cinema or TV work . But even the argument is flawed - even twenty years ago the UK had many active single seater series -F 3,F Renault, F Ford etc , as did Europe. Apart from  F1 support series, single seaters  are an endangered species, and endless touring , sports and GT  series , often spec formulae are the norm .  

[KWSN - DSM]

I think it is a good list, I do not agree with a lot of it, I agree with a lot of it - I do not see it as a discussion point, we all know how any listing of best will be slanted, weighed and gauged according to he who made the list.

 

That the list is not the usual Top 10 does a lot for it, I am impressed with the work which must have gone into it, and rather than arguing for some being to low or too high I appreciate the names of drivers not on the usual Top 10's who may not always be seen as quite as good as they may have been or currently are. I find some of the rankings gutsy, I may not personally agree but that is all good, since it is not my list.

 

Kudos for the thread/post.

[Collombin]

In terms of the names that appeared in the top 10 I don't think it's too bad a list at all, although as Eric Morecambe might have put it "he's saying all the right blokes - but not necessarily in the right order".

[john aston]

I'm sorry, but in so many respects the list is so ludicrously inaccurate that some of the rankings may as well have been picked out of a hat at random . How else to explain the fact that Nick Heidfeld is claimed to be a better driver than , among others , John Surtees, Damon Hill, Denny Hulme, Jackie Ickx , Keke Rosberg , Francois Cevert and Tom Pryce  ? In 11 seasons not so quick  Nick managed a handful of third places. in F1 , and managed  a few more  in 4 years of Formula E .  

[P.Dron]

The only consistent thing about these BEST EVER lists is that they are pointless effing nonsense.

[2F-001]

I hadn't realised that Pastor Maldonado was so much better than Mark Donohue or Ricardo Rodriguez.

 

There is always so much to learn on TNF; thank you!

[AJCee]

Timo Glock at 82. I’m afraid his brilliance passed me by in F1 and elsewhere. No, for instance, Jan Lammers in the top 200? Given a decent car, or even a poor one, he wasn’t 168 all time places below Elio de Angelis surely?

[john winfield]

 

 

By the way, Brian Redman and Vic Elford are missing from the top half of your list. 

 

Yes, if Vic could manage fourth, on debut, at Rouen, then I think he deserves to be in there.  And where's Jackie Oliver?

[F1Frog]

Posting that list in TNF is as Sir Humphrey would say to Jim Hacker..."brave" 

The Nostalgia Forum is for discussing motor racing of the past, and given that the vast majority of drivers on this list are 'from the past', I don't really see why this shouldn't go here.

[F1Frog]

"I think the current crop of drivers are the best there have ever been in F1. There are far more other series and junior formulae now, which means to make it to the top level you have to be better than you had to be in the past."

 

That is a massive piece of hyperbole which deserves a strong challenge. Most F1 drivers of today will not have won the Mille Miglia or a hill climb. Neither will they have participated in a rally raid or driven in the Carrera Panamericana. They won't have taken the wheel of a tin-top or competed at Meadowdale. Or done an oval, much less a super speedway. Or won on two wheels. 

 

Undoubtedly, some modern F1 drivers are very good, but of the 26-odd drivers who turn up at any given F1 Grand Prix, I doubt that more than five at any given time could be considered in a global trawl of 'best' drivers on that day.

 

Now, as then, you will have some truly great drivers (fast in good or bad machinery) but they have little chance to prove it. 

 

And as stated, we still have drivers in F1 who mainly got into that elite group because of the cash they could bring and not so much for their talent. 

 

So a 'best in F1' list is like listing the Best Brand of Baked Beans.

 

By the way, Brian Redman and Vic Elford are missing from the top half of your list. 

The maths supports my claim that, overall, the current set of drivers are the strongest ever. That makes sense to me, given, as I said, there are a lot more talented drivers trying to get into Formula 1 nowadays. Maybe they are not as versatile now as they were then, but I believe that they are, in general, better now in F1. Vic Elford is a good shout as someone who could have made the list, but not the top half. Possibly Redman too, he would be more on the boundary.

[john aston]

What maths are those ? To repeat my question about Heidfeld - what random sequence of numbers produced such a laughably incorrect result? 

[F1Frog]

I'm sorry, but in so many respects the list is so ludicrously inaccurate that some of the rankings may as well have been picked out of a hat at random . How else to explain the fact that Nick Heidfeld is claimed to be a better driver than , among others , John Surtees, Damon Hill, Denny Hulme, Jackie Ickx , Keke Rosberg , Francois Cevert and Tom Pryce  ? In 11 seasons not so quick  Nick managed a handful of third places. in F1 , and managed  a few more  in 4 years of Formula E .  

It is possible to disagree with someone in a polite and respectful way. It is not 'ludicrously inaccurate,' as there is no correct list. In a list of 200 drivers there is always going to be something you disagree with, and I'm sure if you came up with your own 'accurate' list, there would be plenty that I thought seemed wrong. I think Heidfeld was a very quick driver. He was almost on par with Kubica, a highly-rated driver, he outperformed Webber as teammates, beat rookies Raikkonen and Massa when he only had slightly more experience, and outperformed an ageing Alesi. Again, he is probably a little too high, but I still think he deserves a high ranking. Looking back, he should not be ahead of Raikkonen, but that is because Raikkonen deserves to be moved higher, not Heidfeld lower.

[F1Frog]

What maths are those ? To repeat my question about Heidfeld - what random sequence of numbers produced such a laughably incorrect result? 

https://f1metrics.wo...etrics-top-100/

 

Obviously it is not perfect, but if you read the description of the model you can see it takes into account a lot of factors and has a lot of validity.

[ensign14]

there are a lot more talented drivers trying to get into Formula 1 nowadays.

Are there really though?

 

Alain Prost got into F1 for a cost of about £50 - everything then on was paid for by sponsors who saw his talent.  Graham Hill got in even more cheaply, half-a-crown for a few laps at Brands and then wrenching at Lotus. 

 

If you were around in 1960 and fancied a tilt at motor racing, a Formula Junior Condor would set you back £1,250; that's £30k in today's money.  What would that get you in a formula these days?  Half a season of F4?  Yet with that one car you were a step away from Formula 1.  And if you were good, someone else would give you that shot.

 

Go forward another 15 years and you could buy an actual Formula 1 Tyrrell for £400k in today's terms.  I.e. less than half a Formula 2 season. 

 

The opportunities back then were far, far more available than today.  The entry bar was far lower.  And with natural selection, that suggests that those who made it to F1 in the sixties at least were the absolute best of the best. 

[Risil]

Oi, where's Olivier Gendebien

[F1Frog]

Are there really though?

 

Alain Prost got into F1 for a cost of about £50 - everything then on was paid for by sponsors who saw his talent.  Graham Hill got in even more cheaply, half-a-crown for a few laps at Brands and then wrenching at Lotus. 

 

If you were around in 1960 and fancied a tilt at motor racing, a Formula Junior Condor would set you back £1,250; that's £30k in today's money.  What would that get you in a formula these days?  Half a season of F4?  Yet with that one car you were a step away from Formula 1.  And if you were good, someone else would give you that shot.

 

Go forward another 15 years and you could buy an actual Formula 1 Tyrrell for £400k in today's terms.  I.e. less than half a Formula 2 season. 

 

The opportunities back then were far, far more available than today.  The entry bar was far lower.  And with natural selection, that suggests that those who made it to F1 in the sixties at least were the absolute best of the best. 

Whilst I still believe the average F1 driver now is better than then, you have given a very reasonable and convincing argument to suggest otherwise so thank you for that. 

[messy]

I always used to say it was impossible to decide on a ‘greatest of all time’ across different eras blah blah blah, but the older I get the more I’m drawn to the answer that Ayrton Senna is the greatest F1 driver of all time, and that’s just pure gut instinct and belief that I don’t have any statistics or reasoned argument to back up - I just think it’s so.