16 replies to this topic

[Joe Fan]

Who was the better driver? I have wrestled with this one for some time, waffling back and forth. Right now, I feel that Ascari was a better driver but I am willing to listen to arguments either way.

[Dennis David]

That's a very good comparison. I would have to give a slight nod to Moss, as Ascari was best when he was in the lead but might give in if you had a large lead on him. On the other hand Moss could be counted on to always give his best. Though Ascari has quite a reputation I think that he is actually underrated by the non-Italian press. What I especially like about him is he seemed to be so full of life. If you look at photo’s of him he is almost always smiling. When he died all of Italy mourned his death; there was a huge procession and services in Milan if I’m not mistaken.



------------------
Regards,

Dennis David
Yahoo = dennis_a_david

Life is racing, the rest is waiting

Grand Prix History
www.ddavid.com/formula1/

[Uncle Davy]

I won't hazard an opinion as to who was "better"...that's kind of a loaded question.
However, Moss' career in GP racing encompassed the F2 era of '52-'53, the 2.5 liter formula from '54 to '60 which began with front-engined cars and saw them superseded by rear(mid)-engined cars, and ended prematurely during the 1.5 liter era in '62. Except for the first category, he was successful in all of these types of cars.
Ascari may have had the talent to prove just as versatile; unfortunately, that will always remain one of those tantalizing "what-ifs".

[Don Capps]

Both were immensely talented and I was a great fan of both as a youngster. The Brit motoring press in general were never quite as keen on Ascari as they naturally were on Moss, Denis Jenkinson being the exception rating them both very highly.

Both were great drivers. That should be enough.

------------------
Yr fthfl & hmbl srvnt,

Don Capps

[cjs f1]

I'd say Moss.
If I understood correctly, he was the one who pioneered techniques such as late braking; used by everyone today.
Moss would have obviously won a few world championships if he didn't ally himself to the British teams when they were not yet at there strongest.
Plus, the fact that he won at Monaco 3 (was it 3?) times is good enough reason to say that Moss was one of the best.

[Don Capps]

I'll be honest: Moss was THE Racing Driver when I was growing up -- he was an all-around great driver in virtually any car he got into.

When he didn't win the WDC in 1958 or 1959, it took a bit of the shine off it for many of us, even though the champs were worthy champs.


Heavens knows what it would have been like if he had driven several more seasons. I think that in 1962 he had finally decided to get Very Serious about the WDC and grab himself one, hence the deal with Ferrari.

I have real weakness for those like Moss, Dan Gurney, Phil Hill, Mario Andretti, John Surtees, Bruce McLaren, Denny Hulme, Jack Brabham, Rodger Ward, A.J. Foyt, Parenlli Jones, etc., who were able to excel in several categories, not necessarily GP/F1.


------------------
Yr fthfl & hmbl srvnt,

Don Capps




[This message has been edited by Don Capps (edited 11-16-1999).]

[Joe Fan]

Some of the problems I have believing Moss was better than Ascari are that:

1) Fangio said that he lost his greatest competitor when Ascari was killed

2) When you look at wins, fastest laps and poles per GP start, the only driver that rivals Fangio is Ascari.

Ascari
Wins: 13/31 41.9%
Fastest Laps: 13/31 41.9%
Poles: 14/31 45.2%

Moss
Wins: 16/66 24.2%
Fastest Laps: 19/66 28.8%
Poles: 16/66 24.2%

Fangio:
Wins: 24/51 47.1%
Fastest Laps: 23/51 45.1%
Poles: 29/51 56.9%

3) Using F1's scoring system that was used from 1950-1957, Ascari would have been the champion in 1949. Since there was no real differences between the GP seasons 1947-49 to the first several years of F1 and since there was no official champion crowned, I consider Ascari the champion for 1949 and a three time WDC.

Granted I believe that Ascari had great cars, the Ferrari 500 is arguably the greatest car in F1 history (though in part because Alfa Romeo withdrew in 1952) but Moss had great cars too (the Maserati 250F, Mercedes-Benz W196, Vanwalls, Cooper T51)although not reliable enough to win a championship in but certainly reliable enough to produce more poles and fastest laps in as a percentage of GP starts.

Moss may have pioneered late breaking techniques but was he really as fast as Ascari? Both are great drivers but I still have trouble ranking Moss ahead of Ascari.



[This message has been edited by Joe Fan (edited 11-16-1999).]

[Dr.DeDion]

One of the things that has been lost with the present specialization of F1 drivers is that you can't compare their performances in different types of racing as you could up until a dozen or so years ago.When you compare drivers of the 1950s or earlier you really must take their performance in different types of racing into account.

When you compare Fangio, Ascari and Moss you can definitely say that Moss and Fangio were better than Ascari in Sports-racing cars, particularly in the over-the-road events of the Mille Miglia sort.Though Ascari did have one very impressive win at the 1954 Mille, just to cast some doubt on his overall record.

But when it comes to comparing them in GP racing alone I don't think it is clear that Moss or even Fangio was quicker than Alberto Ascari.Ascari soundly beat Fangio and everyone in the '52-53 seasons and his car was better but not that much better than the A6G Maserati.The 1953 version of the Maser was probably actually faster than the 4-cylinder Ferrari in a straight line.After 1953 their positions were reversed in regard to equipment quality and Ascari sat out many races waiting for the Lancia D-50, but if you take a close look at his final few F1 drives it gives you some food for thought.In Ascari's one-off drive for Ferrari at the Italian GP in 1954, he led Fangio's streamlined MB for half the race on a circuit where the Mercedes should have been much faster.Of course the 625's 4-banger expired from merciless over-revving, but Fangio took the edge off his own car's power trying to keep up with Alberto.In Ascari's last race at Monaco, Mercedes brought 2 special short- wheelbase versions of the W196 designed specifically for the tight circuit for Fangio and Moss to drive.Despite that, Ascari equalled Fangio's pole qualifying time in the Lancia.

My point is that Ascari was capable of beating Fangio in an inferior GP car, but Juan never proved that he could do the same to Alberto.

[Dennis David]

Doc - Very good points and I agree that any difference in the two drivers was paper thin.

------------------
Regards,

Dennis David
Yahoo = dennis_a_david

Life is racing, the rest is waiting

Grand Prix History
www.ddavid.com/formula1/

[Fast One]

Funny what time does to the reputations of some drivers. Ascari is a classic example of a driver who was considered as good as anyone in his day, yet who has slipped considerably in retrospect. Clark, Hill, Surtees, and Gurney were considered pretty equal in speed in the '60's, yet time has seen the latter three, and especially the last two suffer a real dropping off in the esteem in which they are held. Nelson Piquet seems to be suffering the same fate, and I wonder if time will do the same to Prost.

Other guys seem to grow in reputation after they are gone. My favorite examples, as you know are Jochen Rindt and Gilles Villeneuve. I wonder if being killed plays a part. I think it does, but I also think certain guys, GV, JMF, SM, and most of all Nuvolari, really were more interesting characters, hence more "lore" abounds to keep their names alive. Anyone have any thoughts?

[Dennis David]

Fair question, certainly how you raced rather than your stats will lead to more stories, which build and perpetuate a driver’s reputation. That’s why I place so much weight in how a driver is viewed by his peers. Moss considered himself number two to Fangio in F1 cars while Ascari never did. He was the only driver of that period except for maybe Jean Behra who felt the equal of Fangio. Wimille at the end of the war was considered by most of the drivers including Fangio himself as the best in the World. That’s also why I rate Gilles so highly because his peers did also.

------------------
Regards,

Dennis David
Yahoo = dennis_a_david

Life is racing, the rest is waiting

Grand Prix History
www.ddavid.com/formula1/

[Duane]

Don,
You mentioned something abour Moss and ferrari.
Had Moss signed to drive for Ferrari in 62?

[Joe Fan]

The one big negative I have about Ascari occurred at the beginning of 1952. He missed the Swiss Grand Prix so that he could run in the Indy 500. He didn't qualify real well at Indy (19th) and he spun during the race knocking him out early where he finish 31st. Then Piero Taruffi walked away from the field winning the Swiss GP by almost 3 minutes driving Alberto's car in his absence.
This indicates what a great ride Ascari had in F1 that season due to Alfa Romeo pulling out. I also can't help but notice Ascari's dismall Indy performance in comparison to other F1 drivers. Graham Hill won Indy in his very first attempt and Jim Clark finished 2nd in his first attempt and won in his third attempt. But I at least give Ascari credit for trying the Indy 500.

[Dennis David]

Joe - I'm always amazed when F1 drivers do as well as they do at Indy. The technique is totaly different.

BTW - While I'm looking forward to F1 at Indy I do feel a sense of dread that I hope is misplaced.

------------------
Regards,

Dennis David
Yahoo = dennis_a_david

Life is racing, the rest is waiting

Grand Prix History
www.ddavid.com/formula1/

[Dennis David]

Hey Taruffi was no slouch!

------------------
Regards,

Dennis David
Yahoo = dennis_a_david

Life is racing, the rest is waiting

Grand Prix History
www.ddavid.com/formula1/

[Dr.DeDion]

Ascari's Indianapolis performance is considered a very honorable failure by his fans.The midfield qualifying position may not impress, but it was a considerable achievement in the unsupercharged Ferrari.The fact that his qualifying laps were all within 2/10ths of each other was also viewed as a tribute to his consistency.In the race itself he was up to 7th place on lap 40 when the right rear hub sheared, having not been designed to withstand continual very high g-loads on the Speedway's banked turns.This caused his retirement from the race.If the car had lasted the distance, a podium finish would not have been out of the question.

To modern eyes "Ciccio" Ascari doesn't look like a well-conditioned athelete, but in reality he was highly dedicated to mental and physical preparation.With his body, I guess that he had to work hard to condition himself to last through the dehydration and fatigue of racing in those days, but his upper body strength was a considerable asset when driving the 375F-1.It's no coincidence that the other acknowledged master of the 375, Froilan Gonzales, had the same sort of physique.Ascari's understanding of the physical forces acting on the machine and technical aspects of driving was probably not quite as deep as Nuvolari's , but it was an aspect of his professionalism that he certainly did not ignore.

The most frequent criticism directed at Alberto Ascari in his day was very similar to the criticism that was aimed at Jim Clark a decade later:'He only wins when he has the best car','He only wins when he qualifies on the first row','He's not a "tiger", he doesn't like to fight for position or play the waiting game','He's an F1 specialist who is out of his element in other types of racing'. There is some truth to these observations, but at various times Ascari produced performances which challenged each of these assertions made about his shortcomings.



[This message has been edited by Dr.DeDion (edited 12-05-1999).]

[Dennis David]

Doc – Excellent observations, I remember Surtees making those exact same comments about Clark though I think in both cases it was more an act of self preservation than any lack of skill.

------------------
Regards,

Dennis David
Yahoo = dennis_a_david

Life is racing, the rest is waiting

Grand Prix History
www.ddavid.com/formula1/