Best Ever F1 Driver

Who cares?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dion @ Jan 4 2008, 12:48 AM) [snapback]105797[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
I am Interested to see who you all think is the greatest driver of all time is ?
Mine would be Jackie Stewart, But My favorite driver is Francois Cevert.

Stewart, Fittapaldi, Schumacher, Senna



senna would get my number 1 vote but hunt, mansell and stewart are close behind

after senna i supported hakkinen then raikkonen and now raikkonen and hamilton

Impossible to say, frankly. The difference between the eras are just too great to make a comparison. Most people will immediatly say Ayrton Senna, however I think the romanticising gets a bit ridiculous sometimes, and thats coming from a Senna fan. The only driver you can really compare to Senna due to the era thing is Alain Prost, and I do think overall, Alain was equal to Ayrton. I think Ayrton was the quicker driver over a single lap, but Alain really was 'The Professor' when it came to racecraft. It certainly made for an interesting rivalry.

Jim Clark certainly belongs there with the best of 'em. I'd go as far as saying he was the most naturally gifted driver of all time. If you ever need a display of sheer grit and determination, look up Monza 1967. He also showed an innate ability to adapt to any form of racing, not just F1, he also raced in IndyCars, Saloons, SportsCars and even NASCAR. However, once again, the era thing makes it difficult to say he was any better than Senna, Fangio or Schumi, for example.

One driver than almost never gets mentioned in anything like this is Jack Brabham. His engineering knowledge was second to none, and hes still the only driver to win the title racing for his own team. His driving style was awesome to watch, too.

Gilles Villeneuve is also high up in my list, although thats probably swayed by my admiration for him. When it came to sheer bravery, Gilles took the biscuit. Unfortunately, it also cost him his life, before we got to see his full potential realised.

Anyway, I'll just give my top ten, in no particular order:

Juan Manuel Fangio
Alain Prost
Ayrton Senna
Micheal Schumacher
Jim Clark
Gilles Villeneuve
Jackie Stewart
Niki Lauda
Alberto Ascari
Jack Brabham

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Son of Doohan @ Jan 4 2008, 01:18 AM) [snapback]105798[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
Who cares?

Not you, evidently, so why you're bothering to post in this thread is beyond me.

Alonso, Fangio, Schumacher

Getting killed in action gives sportsmen an aura of hero, which I try to don't take into account. So IMO guys like Senna and G. Villeneuve are overrated.
Senna was damm good, but no better than Prost. Gilles couldn't even beat his teammates regularly let alone win a championship.

Jack Brabham, Alan Jones and Mark Webber.

Fangio, clark, schumacher.

Alan jones an honourable mention for best pre- and post-race comments.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Teomolca @ Jan 4 2008, 12:56 PM) [snapback]105816[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
Alonso, Fangio, Schumacher

Getting killed in action gives sportsmen an aura of hero, which I try to don't take into account. So IMO guys like Senna and G. Villeneuve are overrated.
Senna was damm good, but no better than Prost. Gilles couldn't even beat his teammates regularly let alone win a championship.

I get your point. It's true that now after Senna's death, people look at what he did, and achieved, a bit differently. That's usually the case, BUT having said that, I can't believe you put Alonso in that list, and not Senna. Obviously drivers like MS and Fangio are in that list. Not a doubt about that.

I can't say who's the best ever, like Orrmate already pointed out, the differences between the eras are just too big. So we can't possibly say who the best is, but Senna proved a hell of a lot more than Alonso did.

I don't really have an order, but imo MS, Fangio, Senna, Clark and Prost are one of the best ever. Clark could have done so much more, same goes for Senna.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Son of Doohan @ Jan 4 2008, 12:58 PM) [snapback]105817[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
Jack Brabham, Alan Jones and Mark Webber.



Of course..

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Franco Fangio @ Jan 4 2008, 12:39 PM) [snapback]105822[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
I can't say who's the best ever, like Orrmate already pointed out, the differences between the eras are just too big. So we can't possibly say who the best is, but Senna proved a hell of a lot more than Alonso did.

I don't really have an order, but imo MS, Fangio, Senna, Clark and Prost are one of the best ever. Clark could have done so much more, same goes for Senna.

I agree with you that prost rates about equal with senna; senna got pole much more often, but prost had many fastest laps during the actual races.

I don't particularly like alonso, and I don't think he rates with the all-time greats yet, but I would not discount him eventually doing so.

As for my esteemed compatriot son of doohan's levity concerning mark webber, he has had some bad luck but unfortunately in the same sense that being lucky is the same as being good, being unlucky over a sufficient period of time is the same as being bad.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(michaelm @ Jan 4 2008, 01:59 PM) [snapback]105824[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
1.I agree with you that prost rates about equal with senna; senna got pole much more often, but prost had many fastest laps during the actual races.

2.I don't particularly like alonso, and I don't think he rates with the all-time greats yet, but I would not discount him eventually doing so.

3.As for my esteemed compatriot son of doohan's levity concerning mark webber, he has had some bad luck but unfortunately in the same sense that being lucky is the same as being good, being unlucky over a sufficient period of time is the same as being bad.

1. Yeah, dont think Senna was that much better than Prost. Alain won 4 titles, and Ayrton won 3 titles. Alain came close to winning 2 other titles I think, he just missed out because of the rules back then, I think that was in 88 when Senna won his maiden title. It's hard to say who's better. They're about equal I would say. Senna was, like you said, the better pole man, Prost was really good in the races, but so was Ayrton. I think maybe people like Senna more because he was more charismatic, and he had a more aggressive driving style than Alain, who was Mr. Smooth.

2. I agree with the part in bold. Alonso is nowadays best f1 driver. I do think Raikkonen aint that far away though, but overall I rate Alonso higher than the Finn. He has what it takes to become a real great one imo.

3. Kimi was bad during his Mclaren time then

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Franco Fangio @ Jan 4 2008, 01:41 PM) [snapback]105829[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
3. Kimi was bad during his Mclaren time then

Kimi is both a lot better and a lot luckier than mark webber, including when he was at mclaren .

I did have hopes for mark at the start of his career. He is a good qualifier, but I have to say he doesn't seem to be able to race. His career has also been marred by incredibly poor judgement; god knows why he didn't go to renault if he had the chance.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(michaelm @ Jan 4 2008, 03:02 PM) [snapback]105831[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
Kimi is both a lot better and a lot luckier than mark webber, including when he was at mclaren .
I agree

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(michaelm @ Jan 4 2008, 03:02 PM) [snapback]105831[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
I did have hopes for mark at the start of his career. He is a good qualifier, but I have to say he doesn't seem to be able to race. His career has also been marred by incredibly poor judgement; god knows why he didn't go to renault if he had the chance.
Me too actually. I really thought he had what it takes to become one of the best drivers of the last 5 years, but so far it seems I was wrong. I guess it's hard to judge, cause he never really drove a great car. I do think he's good in quali, but during the races, where it counts, he doesn't seem to be that special. I hope he will improve and prove me wrong..

I rate Webber pretty highly to be honest, and I do think if he had the equipment he'd be right up there with Alonso and Raikkonen. He's certainly the unluckiest driver on the grid, although you could put some of that down to his own fault, if he's pushing the car too hard (much like Kimi's reputation at McLaren). Some of his performances in lower-end cars have been remarkable, and it's a shame we haven't seen what he can do in a top car yet.

I must say as well, I'm a big fan. He certainly hasn't had an easy path to F1, and he displays a great deal of determination, despite regular dissapointments. His performance at Fuji this year, despite illness, being physically sick in the cockpit at the start of the race, certainly showed alot of grit. Then theres his debut in 02 where he scored fifth in a Minardi (in my opinion, that was a more impressive debut even than Jacques Villeneuve, considering the equipment he had). Times with Jaguar and Williams certainly weren't easy but the results he did score were good, again considering the equipment at his disposal.

Most of all though, its refreshing to see a driver in F1 who didn't start Karting when he was in nappies, who didn't have his career booked and paid for by Red Bull, and who wasn't in F1 by the time he was 20. Nothing against Vettel and co, but its just good to see guys like Mark are still given the opportunity.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Orrmate @ Jan 4 2008, 04:00 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I rate Webber pretty highly to be honest, and I do think if he had the equipment he'd be right up there with Alonso and Raikkonen. He's certainly the unluckiest driver on the grid, although you could put some of that down to his own fault, if he's pushing the car too hard (much like Kimi's reputation at McLaren). Some of his performances in lower-end cars have been remarkable, and it's a shame we haven't seen what he can do in a top car yet.
Yes, true..IF..
There must be a very good reason why a top team doesn't offer him a seat. IF he was that good, he would have gotten the chance.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Orrmate @ Jan 4 2008, 04:00 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Most of all though, its refreshing to see a driver in F1 who didn't start Karting when he was in nappies, who didn't have his career booked and paid for by Red Bull, and who wasn't in F1 by the time he was 20. Nothing against Vettel and co, but its just good to see guys like Mark are still given the opportunity.
Yes, it's very admirable. It must be hard for the older blokes to get a chance, cause obviously the young guns are taking over..so it seems.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Franco Fangio @ Jan 5 2008, 11:05 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Yes, true..IF..
There must be a very good reason why a top team doesn't offer him a seat. IF he was that good, he would have gotten the chance.


Yes, it's very admirable. It must be hard for the older blokes to get a chance, cause obviously the young guns are taking over..so it seems.
You've already said why the big teams won't employ him; age. Although he has made some bad career moves, it has to be said. The Williams thing certainly was a disaster. But age is the biggest factor I think, not a lack of talent.

Look at Sebastien Bourdais. Been deserving of an F1 seat now for quite a few years. He finally gets it, and by now he's considered 'old' at 27. I think its ........ personally, but there ya go.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Orrmate @ Jan 5 2008, 08:10 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>You've already said why the big teams won't employ him; age. Although he has made some bad career moves, it has to be said. The Williams thing certainly was a disaster. But age is the biggest factor I think, not a lack of talent.

Look at Sebastien Bourdais. Been deserving of an F1 seat now for quite a few years. He finally gets it, and by now he's considered 'old' at 27. I think its ........ personally, but there ya go.
Age might be a factor..
The most important factor is still talent imo. IF he was good enough, the big teams would want him, because then he would be even more ideal. Of course he has talent, otherwise he wouldn't be in F1, but the big teams probably think he aint good enough. 27 aint old, but it's true that most guys entering F1 are younger, that's just the way it is.

I think Schumacher is overated... the ferrari was the best for many seasons when he won. (proved by the likes of Eddie Irvine, Barichello winning when they where ALLOWED!)

Senna is the best i've seen and he was a great character also.... even in 93 when they lost the Honda power he was still driving like a maniac.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (an4rew @ Jan 5 2008, 08:51 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I think Schumacher is overated... the ferrari was the best for many seasons when he won. (proved by the likes of Eddie Irvine, Barichello winning when they where ALLOWED!)
I would say the same thing about Rossi. He's overrated by your standard.

Schumacher was the best ever F1 racer. Or have we forgotten how many championships he's won?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (an4rew @ Jan 6 2008, 04:51 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I think Schumacher is overated... the ferrari was the best for many seasons when he won. (proved by the likes of Eddie Irvine, Barichello winning when they where ALLOWED!)
I think it is hard to over-rate michael schumacher. He certainly did not have the fastest car for his 2 benetton world championships, although the benetton perhaps was still faster than it should have been . He absolutely destroyed martin brundle at benetton, probably explaining martin's antipathy towards him as a commentator. I also don't think the ferrari was necessarily always the fastest car particularly for his early world championships there. Like rossi, he was also a pure racer and tried to win every race or failing that to finish as high as possible, even at the expense of his overall championship chances on occasion, which has to be admired.

Even apart from his driving ability, still evident in his storming drive in his last race when he did the impossible and passed multiple cars on the track in a modern F1 race, he was also brilliant at building and inspiring a team and at developing a car. If you remember, the year that he broke his leg and eddie irvine could have and probably should have won the championship, eddie was right on the pace when michael got injured, gradually fell off the pace when he was not around, then got back on the pace when michael returned and started developing the car again. That said, ferrari appeared to me to have a weird attitude, in that they didn't seem to be very keen on winning the championship with irvine rather than schumacher; shades of hayden and pedrosa at honda, perhaps.

Yes, I am a schumacher fan-boy .

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (an4rew @ Jan 6 2008, 05:51 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I think Schumacher is overated... the ferrari was the best for many seasons when he won. (proved by the likes of Eddie Irvine, Barichello winning when they where ALLOWED!)
Michael isn't overrated IMO. I actually think they should have never given Rubinho and Eddie a number 2 role, because MS would have beaten them hands down anyway. Now people will say ''see, he did it cause he was the number one'' Its a shame, cause he would have done it either way, the guy is simply a genious. He did a great job in his early F1 career, and when he won the titles in 94 and 95 it was MORE than deserved. Of course people will focus on the Adelaide incident, but overall Michael was the best that season, and in 95 too. I think it was a brave thing to do when he joined Ferrari. When he joined them, they weren't championship material, but he (and Brawn) turned it around, due to hard work. He made them a winning team again. Seven titles is amazing, he would have won 99 if it wasnt for his accident, and he nearly won in 06. I think he is (one of) the best ever. Overrated? That's your opinion, and I respect it, I just disagree completely.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (an4rew @ Jan 6 2008, 05:51 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Senna is the best i've seen and he was a great character also.... even in 93 when they lost the Honda power he was still driving like a maniac.
Senna was one of a kind. You're right, he was a great character for sure. Also very charismatic, and obviously very very talented. He would have won more than 3 titles I'm sure..

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (michaelm @ Jan 6 2008, 11:11 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I think it is hard to over-rate michael schumacher. He certainly did not have the fastest car for his 2 benetton world championships, although the benetton perhaps was still faster than it should have been . He absolutely destroyed martin brundle at benetton, probably explaining martin's antipathy towards him as a commentator. I also don't think the ferrari was necessarily always the fastest car particularly for his early world championships there. Like rossi, he was also a pure racer and tried to win every race or failing that to finish as high as possible, even at the expense of his overall championship chances on occasion, which has to be admired.
I agree completely. Ferrari wasn't always the fastest, still he did an amazing job. Just look at 2000 and 2003 when he took the title. I think MS also showed his pure class in the years he didnt end up winning the titles, for example 97, and of course 91, 92 and 93. 97 was an amazing season. Ok, MS didn't win, but he came sooooo close, and it was obvious that JV had a far better car than his opponent. People forget that, and focus on the Ferrari dominance era, and then they say he's overrated. I just don't get it.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (michaelm @ Jan 6 2008, 11:11 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Even apart from his driving ability, still evident in his storming drive in his last race when he did the impossible and passed multiple cars on the track in a modern F1 race, he was also brilliant at building and inspiring a team and at developing a car. If you remember, the year that he broke his leg and eddie irvine could have and probably should have won the championship, eddie was right on the pace when michael got injured, gradually fell off the pace when he was not around, then got back on the pace when michael returned and started developing the car again. That said, ferrari appeared to me to have a weird attitude, in that they didn't seem to be very keen on winning the championship with irvine rather than schumacher; shades of hayden and pedrosa at honda, perhaps.

Yes, I am a schumacher fan-boy .
That was one of his greatest strengths for sure. He could really make a team better, and that shows how great of a champion he is, IMO.

You're a MS fan boy?? Oh..I can't blame you. I never was a fan of the guy, but I have great respect for what he achieved. I really missed him last year, but then again, Kimi wouldn't have won the title if he was still at Ferrari. So I'm not complaining