370 replies to this topic

[robnyc]

I saw on another forum that F1 Racing magazine published the list of the 50 fastest F1 drivers ever last month. Does anyone have this list?
Apparently this was done based on stats and input from various F1 experts. All I know is that Senna was the 1st and Alonso was in the top 10.

[gerry nassar]

There was a bit of discussion in the nostalgia forum

http://forums.autosp...racing magazine

Though that doesnt give you the list.

You may need to buy the magazine ;)

IIRC -

Fangio in the top 3
Alonso was 8, Mika 7, Michael 2.
Mansell was placed in the top 4....

[robnyc]

Originally posted by gerry nassar
There was a bit of discussion in the nostalgia forum

http://forums.autosp...racing magazine

Though that doesnt give you the list.

You may need to buy the magazine ;)

IIRC -

Fangio in the top 3
Alonso was 8, Mika 7, Michael 2.
Mansell was placed in the top 4....

I actually found it in Wikipedia, thanks. Interesting to see Trulli ahead of both Button and Webber. It could very well be the case.

Pos. Piloto
1º Ayrton Senna
2º Michael Schumacher
3º Jim Clark
4º Nigel Mansell
5º Ronnie Peterson
6º Juan Manuel Fangio
7º Mika Hakkinen
8º Fernando Alonso
9º Jackie Stewart
10º Jochen Rindt
11º Gilles Villeneuve
12º Stirling Moss
13º Kimi Raikkonen
14º Alain Prost
15º Nelson Piquet
16º Alberto Ascari
17º Emerson Fittipaldi
18º Niki Lauda
19º Stefan Bellof
20º Keke Rosberg
21º James Hunt
22º Alan Jones
23º François Cevert
24º Chris Amon
25º Juan Pablo Montoya
26º Jacky Ickx
27º Mario Andretti
28º Carlos Reutemann
29º Tom Pryce
30º Jody Scheckter
31º Damon Hill
32º Jack Brabham
33º Giuseppe Farina
34º Hans-Joachim Stuck
35º Carlos Pace
36º Tony Brooks
37º John Surtees
38º Johnny Servoz-Gavin
39º Gerhard Berger
40º Jo Siffert
41º Didier Pironi
42º Jarno Trulli
43º Mark Webber
44º Rene Arnoux
45º Jean Alesi
46º Dan Gurney
47º Riccardo Patrese
48º Jean-Pierre Jarier
49º Jenson Button
50º Tony Brise

[DaleCooper]

It was nice and rather unexpected that Nigel got the recognition he deserves. Since it wasn't a poll of raving lunatic fans, I think his standing has some merit.


Cooper

[Peri_Piket]

Originally posted by robnyc

Pos. Piloto
1º Ayrton Senna
2º Michael Schumacher
3º Jim Clark
4º Nigel Mansell
...
15º Nelson Piquet
...
39º Gerhard Berger

IMO, through the articles I read, Jim Clark was as fast as Ayrton.

Ronnie Peterson also was the fastest driver in Emerson and Stewart's times.

Nelson Piquet was the fastest man on Earth on Turbo cars.
Senna tested his Brabham BT52 and couldn't beat his time.

Piquet was faster than Mansell before his whack in Imola, of course his better car set up skills helped him.

Also Berger deserved a better spot.
His career also had two stages divided by the Imola shunt.
Berger was great on Benetton BMW Turbos and at Ferrari.
The fire consumed his mojo.

The same applies to Niki Lauda before and after his Nurburgring crash.

[Risil]

Prost, 14th?

A man with more fastest laps, wins, than anyone save Schumacher?

Four world titles, could've been another in '83 if not for (alleged) Brabham irregularity, half a point off one in '84 (with 7 wins as well), winning in '86 despite a markedly inferior car to 4th-placed Mansell, and denied in '88 by an 'interesting' scoring system? Not saying 4 is too low, just that this guy was in contention for nearly every World Title from 1981-93.

With no disrespect to Mansell, Raikkonen, or Alonso, but with the exception of Silverstone '87 they have not achieved anything to match that. I don't like to criticise F1 Racing, but they're badly wrong here.


Maybe when the people compiling these aren't the ones who fell in love with Senna and Mansell in the '80s, Clark, Prost et al will rise towards the top.

[512 TR]

Alain Prost at # 14.

Who the hell compiled that list? Homer Simpson?

Give me a sixpack and I will give you the facts why he was the greatest ever. Here's a snippet. The "greatest" on that list had to run him off the track even though the "greatest" had the better package.

[robnyc]

Originally posted by 512 TR
Alain Prost at # 14.

Who the hell compiled that list? Homer Simpson?

Give me a sixpack and I will give you the facts why he was the greatest ever. Here's a snippet. The "greatest" on that list had to run him off the track even though the "greatest" had the better package.

I agree about Prost. But you must say that besides this discrepancy the list look fairly accurate.

[512 TR]

The greatest GP win of all time...

Alain Prost in a Ferrari in Mexico 1990. 13th on the grid. The devil's tyre exploded on lap 63 (out of 69). People still debate if Prost would have caught him. He would! He picked the best tyres that weekend. He ended up beating his team mate by almost 30 seconds...

[Peri_Piket]

I don't know exactly the question of the pool, but Prost was indeed capable of making fastest laps, like the ones he did against Senna at McLaren.
However Prost CHOSE not to take many risks.
Therefore, considering the overall picture of his carrer, the place might be accurate.

Prost was capable and could have been faster throughout his career, but CHOSE not to.

[emburmak]

Originally posted by 512 TR
The greatest GP win of all time...

Alain Prost in a Ferrari in Mexico 1990. 13th on the grid. The devil's tyre exploded on lap 63 (out of 69). People still debate if Prost would have caught him. He would! He picked the best tyres that weekend. He ended up beating his team mate by almost 30 seconds...

Actually Prost had passed him before that incident happened and on the track. No doubt Mexico 1990 was Prost's greatest race and arguably one of the greatest ever. For the magazine to put him i 14th is an insult.

[512 TR]

Originally posted by robnyc


I agree about Prost. But you must say that besides this discrepancy the list look fairly accurate.

Maybe it's just me but I wouldn't even think about putting drivers like Mark Webber and Jarno Trulli on that list. I would rather pick someone like Olivier Panis or Eddie Irvine. At least they are remembered for something exciting, even though breef.

[512 TR]

Originally posted by emburmak


Actually Prost had passed him before that incident happened and on the track. No doubt Mexico 1990 was Prost's greatest race and arguably one of the greatest ever. For the magazine to put him i 14th is an insult.

Yes, I know that. But they say the devil had a slow puncture and it took a couple of laps for the tyre to explode.

[robnyc]

The question went to some team bosses, ex-f1 drivers, and some other experts including
Max Mosley, Eddie Jordan, Jean Todt & Stirling Moss about who were the 50 fasters drivers of all time. They also looked at some stats for the ranking.
I am not surprised who the # 1 is. Prost #14 wrong.. Senna # 1 right on the money.

[Risil]

Originally posted by Peri_Piket


Prost was capable and could have been faster throughout his career, but CHOSE not to.

This sounds oddly similar to Fangio's winning "at the slowest speed possible", or even Alonso's relentless collection of points against Raikkonen's faster McLaren, when more was possible in each situation. Obviously, all three had vastly different reasons for such tactics, but the fact remains that Alonso and Fangio are both ranked significantly higher than Prost, despite little justification or, seemingly, evidence. Similarly, it's not as if Mansell or Peterson ever fully exploited their obvious talent, either, even if it manifested itself in more spectacular ways. After all, why did Mansell have to 'charge' in the first place?

Prost looked like he was 'choosing' to go pretty fast in Australia '86, too.



EDIT: Please don't make anything of the Alonso comment, I'm not making any kind of judgement on him, and I don't want this thread to descend into another one of those Highly-rated Current Driver vs. The World topics.

[DaleCooper]

Some people seem to be mixed up over this list. It ranks the quickest drivers, not the best, nor the greatest, the QUICKEST. Prost often won by guile and not by sheer driving tenacity, although to argue he was NOT fast would be sheer lunacy. He was, and his great setup skills assured that he was always in contention. But give both him and Mansell a sorted car, and Mansell could produce a more stunnning lap. It's just that Mansell did not always sort his car that well, but this list is not about setup skills. On the other hand we did not always get to see Prost in full flight, he was calculating in the extreme, and would not push unless absolutely necessary. Other drivers did not seem to have this problem. I would have put Prost in the top ten, and about the young generation, I would still reserve judgement, except for Alonso, who has proven himself under the most intense of scrutiny in the heat of battle for the championship. His speed is beyond doubt, as is his mind.


Cooper

[DaleCooper]

Still .... I can't fathom Gilles only 11th. For me he is top 5 for sure, and NUMERO UNO in the wet, no contest done deal, sealed, delivered, signed.


Cooper

[512 TR]

Originally posted by DaleCooper
Some people seem to be mixed up over this list. It ranks the quickest drivers, not the best, nor the greatest, the QUICKEST. Prost often won by guile and not by sheer driving tenacity, although to argue he was NOT fast would be sheer lunacy. He was, and his great setup skills assured that he was always in contention. But give both him and Mansell a sorted car, and Mansell could produce a more stunnning lap. It's just that Mansell did not always sort his car that well, but this list is not about setup skills. On the other hand we did not always get to see Prost in full flight, he was calculating in the extreme, and would not push unless absolutely necessary. Other drivers did not seem to have this problem. I would have put Prost in the top ten, and about the young generation, I would still reserve judgement, except for Alonso, who has proven himself under the most intense of scrutiny in the heat of battle for the championship. His speed is beyond doubt, as is his mind.


Cooper

Regarding Prost vs Mansell. Well, funny thing! Why didn't that happen in the 1990 season? They tied in qualifying 8-8 but Prost spanked him by 34 points in the WDC.

[as65p]

Originally posted by 512 TR
The greatest GP win of all time...

Alain Prost in a Ferrari in Mexico 1990. 13th on the grid. The devil's tyre exploded on lap 63 (out of 69). People still debate if Prost would have caught him. He would! He picked the best tyres that weekend. He ended up beating his team mate by almost 30 seconds...

No question, AP at #14 is ridicoulous.

Regarding Mexico '90, "the devil" ( ) lost a lot of time already in the laps before the tyre exploded, it was a slow puncture. So it's indeed debatable if Prost would have caught him without that. Anyway I agree that it was one of Prost's most memorable performances

Edit: I see the slow puncture was also mentioned in the mag. Another for accuracy to them, that can't always be assumed nowadays.

[Risil]

Originally posted by DaleCooper
Still .... I can't fathom Gilles only 11th. For me he is top 5 for sure, and NUMERO UNO in the wet, no contest done deal, sealed, delivered, signed.


Cooper

That one looked out of place when I first saw it, too. However, on consideration, it is a controversial, but ultimately justifiable choice, as during his (admittedly brief) Formula One career, Gilles hardly dominated 2 of his 3 teammates (an even match for Scheckter, and Reutemann, terrifyingly quick himself, probably did have the better of him), and his incredible displays in really very poor chassis are not exactly backed up by a decidedly lightweight actual record.

That said, had Gilles not been killed at Zolder and gone on to drive for the Williams team as many predicted, he surely would've improved on that record, and probably fill Mansell's spot at #4... For a man who spent just over four years in F1, he made a phenomenal impression, but, due to his tragically short career, he must be regarded, like Bellof and Ricardo Rodriguez, as a lost talent, unable to do his undeniable potential justice on the big stage.

*Sorry if this doesn't make any sense, but it was a struggle writing this post while the voices of reason and romanticism vied for control of its direction...

[DaleCooper]

Originally posted by 512 TR


Regarding Prost vs Mansell. Well, funny thing! Why didn't that happen in the 1990 season? They tied in qualifying 8-8 but Prost spanked him by 34 points in the WDC.

Why didn't what happen?


Cooper

[boyRacer]

Everytime somebody does a list like this... it always looks screwed up. lol

[robnyc]

Originally posted by boyRacer
Everytime somebody does a list like this... it always looks screwed up. lol

It would be impossible for those guys who participated on the survey to be in accord with everyone who watches Motorsports, especially the fan boys.

[Alfisti]

If Damon Hill is faster than Alesi or Brabham, I am a dead set Eskimo.

Button on the list? Good god. I rate th eguy but he doesn't really ring and "fast" bells.

[Arrow]

Mika at 7th is a joke as well. He was barely faster than DC his whole career. He is deserving on 20+ position.

Prost should be top 7.

Peterson nowhere near the top 10.

[DaleCooper]

Originally posted by Alfisti
If Damon Hill is faster than Alesi or Brabham, I am a dead set Eskimo.

Button on the list? Good god. I rate th eguy but he doesn't really ring and "fast" bells.

What about Farina? Slower than Hill?? Very peculiar. Then again, Damon wasn't that far off Prost when they raced together, and he did improve after that, so who knows? I guess there will always be a counterpoint.


Cooper

[DaleCooper]

Originally posted by Arrow


Peterson nowhere near the top 10.

Well then it's a good thing the poll was done by those that actually know what they are talking about, and knew many of the drivers personally and thus had some first hand knowledge!!


Cooper

[robnyc]

Originally posted by Arrow


Peterson nowhere near the top 10.

check again

[Melbourne Park]

Sir Frank Williams rated Alan Jones as the fastest driver he's had. Jones comes in 22.

And Lauda comes in 4 places slower than Prost, and when they were together at McLaren Prost was so much faster it was as if he had a different car. Prost was blindingly quick when he joined F1, driving Renault crap mobiles. He even drove his cars differently, which was later copied. But he seems to be remembered for being the proffessor, and not for his speed.

I don't get it at all. Oh well ... IMO Clark was likely best of them all, he could make any 4 wheeled conveyance dance, but really, to compare eras just doesn't work. It's easy to be fast these days, in the past you got killed if you made a mistake or touched another car. Senna's also remembered for his poles I think, not his races. His frequent touches with other cars means in the older eras being included, Senna would have not made it far at all. Same goes for MS.

[Arrow]

Originally posted by DaleCooper



Well then it's a good thing the poll was done by those that actually know what they are talking about, and knew many of the drivers personally and thus had some first hand knowledge!!


Cooper

Why is Petersons qualifying record in comparision to his team mates so poor? Im looking forward to you explaining how this was possible for one of the 'fastest of all time'.
Thanks.

[pkrash]

Hill?!?!? If I remember a rookie team mate spanked him in his first race and first season except for mechanical troubles....and then won a WDC....and is not even on the list. LOL!!!
Any one care to give a reason for Trulli, Webber, Alesi, Button????
How many races and WDC have these guys won?

[SphereTL1000S]

Prost no. 14 is a joke. Top ten at least.

Kimi? Button? Webber? Trulli? I don't know, not really sure, but I think Kimi is still too young, and no WDC. Webber, Trulli, Button, come on, not top 50 of all time. Between Webber and Irvine, Irvine any time. What about Panis? I think Barrichello, at his prime was faster than Button ever will be.

[Rob G]

Originally posted by Arrow
Why is Petersons qualifying record in comparision to his team mates so poor? Im looking forward to you explaining how this was possible for one of the 'fastest of all time'.
Thanks.

Huh? Over the course of his career he outqualified his teammates Lauda 11-2, Fittipaldi 11-4, Ickx 21-3, and Stuck 13-2. Depailler outqualified him 9-8 in 1977, and the following year the heavily-favored Andretti started ahead of him in 11 out of 14 races. Overall, Peterson outqualified his teammates 74.1% of the time. That's "poor"?

[Arrow]

Originally posted by Rob G

Huh? Over the course of his career he outqualified his teammates Lauda 11-2, Fittipaldi 11-4, Ickx 21-3, and Stuck 13-2. Depailler outqualified him 9-8 in 1977, and the following year the heavily-favored Andretti started ahead of him in 11 out of 14 races. Overall, Peterson outqualified his teammates 74.1% of the time. That's "poor"?

F1racing listed it at 41%. 28/40.

Whos lying here?

[Bernd]

Originally posted by Peri_Piket

IMO, through the articles I read, Jim Clark was as fast as Ayrton.

Faster. Senna himself held Clark & Fangio for that matter in tremendous esteem.

[Oho]

Originally posted by DaleCooper
Some people seem to be mixed up over this list. It ranks the quickest drivers, not the best, nor the greatest, the QUICKEST.

Cooper

Well for what its worth it seems the people doing the rating have had their criteria convoluted in that sense. In a sense they seem to be looking at speed alone but then again it certainly seems other aspects of racing acumen have been factored in. It would explain the lowly spot of Prost, but then again for speed and speed alone I think Michael Schumacher would be too hight on the list and the likes of Gilles Villeneuve too low.

[rbdwin]

Originally posted by DaleCooper



What about Farina? Slower than Hill?? Very peculiar. Then again, Damon wasn't that far off Prost when they raced together, and he did improve after that, so who knows? I guess there will always be a counterpoint.

Prost was 38 and had been out F1 for over a year when he teamed with Hill in '93 (Prost was already in his mid-30s during the 3-year war with Senna from 88 to 90). He was a shadow of his former self and still, despite notorioulsly regarding qualifying as little more than an extra session for setting up his car for the race, had something like 14 or 15 poles with Hill as his teammate. I would not rate Hill's speed, at least not in a positive way, by his performance against Prost in '93.

[Agnis]

Quickest?

Alan van der Merwe and Antonio Pizzonia.

[SphereTL1000S]

Originally posted by rbdwin

Prost was 38 and had been out F1 for over a year when he teamed with Hill in '93 (Prost was already in his mid-30s during the 3-year war with Senna from 88 to 90). He was a shadow of his former self and still, despite notorioulsly regarding qualifying as little more than an extra session for setting up his car for the race, had something like 14 or 15 poles with Hill as his teammate. I would not rate Hill's speed, at least not in a positive way, by his performance against Prost in '93.

OT: Prost did very well indeed in 93. Maybe he could inspire a Schumacher to come back in 2008?

[Dolk]

Originally posted by robnyc


I agree about Prost. But you must say that besides this discrepancy the list look fairly accurate.

A fastest driver list where Nelson is outside the top ten is screwed up. But i agree, move Prost and Nelson into the top ten and the list starts looking a lot better.

[SphereTL1000S]

Originally posted by Dolk


A fastest driver list where Nelson is outside the top ten is screwed up. But i agree, move Prost and Nelson into the top ten and the list starts looking a lot better.

[Big Guns]

You can tell immediately that this list came straight from F1 Racing.

As much as I rate Mansell's speed and balls, he should not be that high. Hakkinen is far too high, ahed of he likes of Gilles and Alain Prost. Absolute joke. You can really see some of the bias F1 Racing has with some drivers. Piquet is too low, as is Rene Arnoux who was absolutely blindngly fast at times, 18 pole positions to his name. Raikkonen is too high, its still to early to judge him like that, number 13?? He's bloody fast but come on.......

The fact that Patrese, Webber, Trulli, Button etc are on that list is just wrong, on all accounts. Lastly, considering what I have just said, how can Jacques Villeneuve not even make the list? Im guessing this list takes into account ones WHOLE career, how can Jacques speed in his Williams years be overlooked, or the early years of BAR where he was highly sought after. There was a reason for that, his speed......

truly pathetic really. BTW Im a newbie. Hi everyone!

[pUs]

Prost?

I cannot understand why he ends up that low. He wasn't spectacular but as somebody already said, he won 4 WDCs and was in contention 83-84-88-90 as well. If he did this without even looking fast, then I'd say it was even more impressive.

[e34fanatic]

I also can´t understand why Prost is only 14th? He was really fast driver when he needed too show true speed. Off course Mansell looked like being faster but he was only more spectacular. Mexico 1990 was mentioned. It was a very best race from Prost but also showed other drivers styles and skills well. Mansell was quicker than Prost in qualifying, Prost was 13th, Mansell 4th absolutely throwing his Ferrari in violent slides in esses with those sticky qualifying tires. Prost didn´t like that and if I remememer right, he qualified with race tires. Senna was leading the race but his tires gave up. Back then there was no talk of slow puncture, only that he tried to go whole distance with same rubber. Prost could do that, Ayrton not.

I would put Prost close behid Senna, well ahead of Mansell, Arnoux, Rosberg etc. who he really beat with same equipment. Not perhaps in qualifyings, but in races. And I suppose you should put emphasis on race performance because results counts.

[Big Guns]

Originally posted by e34fanatic
I also can´t understand why Prost is only 14th? He was really fast driver when he needed too show true speed. Off course Mansell looked like being faster but he was only more spectacular. Mexico 1990 was mentioned. It was a very best race from Prost but also showed other drivers styles and skills well. Mansell was quicker than Prost in qualifying, Prost was 13th, Mansell 4th absolutely throwing his Ferrari in violent slides in esses with those sticky qualifying tires. Prost didn´t like that and if I remememer right, he qualified with race tires. Senna was leading the race but his tires gave up. Back then there was no talk of slow puncture, only that he tried to go whole distance with same rubber. Prost could do that, Ayrton not.

I would put Prost close behid Senna, well ahead of Mansell, Arnoux, Rosberg etc. who he really beat with same equipment. Not perhaps in qualifyings, but in races. And I suppose you should put emphasis on race performance because results counts.

say no more.

Prost's position is nothing short of pathetic. As good as Nigel was, Prost entered the team and destroyed him in 1990. Yet Nigel is where he is?

[Dolk]

Originally posted by Arrow


F1racing listed it at 41%. 28/40.

Whos lying here?

Seriously, if you base your comments re Peterson on a number you just saw in F1racing, then maybe you shouldn't comment on him at all?

[Arrow]

Originally posted by Dolk


Seriously, if you base your comments re Peterson on a number you just saw in F1racing, then maybe you shouldn't comment on him at all?

Well considering these 'numbers' are a direct reflection of speed, fact and reality I think they hold some value. If there is an explanation for them being so poor Id like to hear it. You cant just ignore them though.

[Ross Stonefeld]

You can actually. Its just words.

[schead]

Originally posted by Arrow


Well considering these 'numbers' are a direct reflection of speed, fact and reality I think they hold some value. If there is an explanation for them being so poor Id like to hear it. You cant just ignore them though.

Peterson was only beaten in Quali by Depailler and Andretti.

http://www.f1-facts....-mates/Peterson

[Dudley]

I'm presuming by "fastest" we're talking single lap.

Race Results are somewhat meaningless.