Best driver in F1?

Piquet was born with a silver spoon as well.

Mansell did take the biggest gamble, but Lauda was a close runner up by getting a loan from a bank. His family was dead set against racing.

BTW: My fav Lauda story is, that the guy running the gas station near his home filled up his car for free. In return Lauda gave him all his trophies as he considered them worthless. Imagine!

 

*LOL* Are you related to Senna or what?! You are as devoted to Senna as Imperial is to Ferrari, almost to the point of unhealthy obsession I think.

PS: In Imperial's case, I think he probably will dip himself in Scarlet paint if he is ever invited to the Ferrari pit at Monza.

 

Anthony,

I agree with racerx3317. I have a Senna biography and from memory he did not get financial backing from his father ... now ofcourse it is easier racing and taking financial risks when you know that you can always fall back to this (unlike Lauda and Mansell who really put it on the line).

Senna did have the best teams in the lower formula ... and nearly got beaten in F3, but he purposely went to Toleman and then Lotus to slowly edge his way into F1. Why?, cause he was worried about making a fool of himself and also wanted to prove that he really was fast.

To show how insecure Senna was in those early days we only have to look at the celebrity driver race that was held somewhere in identical Mercedes saloon cars. He won and in so doing beat Lauda, Prost, etc. and he drove like a madman to do it ... the others were just having fun and were a little shocked at how serious Senna took it. BUT to Senna this was himself proving to himself that he really could beat these great drivers.

Racing drivers have very fragile egos ... you might not think so, but every time they get in the car they HAVE to 100% believe they are the fastest on the grid ... otherwise they have lost already. Thus they will never let on to anybody else (maybe their wife or somebody that close) that they have doubts about their ability versus somebody else ... never, they talk the talk and play the mind games to beat up the others egos and introduce self doubt.

Heck even at my level, some played this game.


Anyway ... as a driver Prost > Senna > MS. As a person well heck not sure, but it might be MS > Prost > Senna.

I do not care what you guys keep saying about MS being so dominant against the opposition and thus so good ... sorry unless we can measure the current opposition how do we know they are all not simply useless!!

Thus I come back to the measure of a driver is rated by how many WC's he is racing against. JV was asked back to F1 (I absolutely bet Bernie was involved) to make F1 look respectable again ... as we only had ONE WC racing.

Now those out there that have ACTUALLY raced know how hard it is to win your first race ... let alone your first championship. I have done both at very humble levels and I can tell you that you get major brain issues, you start missing apexes, hearing/feeling things wrong in the car that aren't, etc.

Once you have made it though ... the next time is SOOOOO much easier!. Thus MS's opposition has all these issues to worry about ... MS does NOT!.

Even if you simply look at race wins: MS has something like 1000 race wins versus less than 20 for ALL other drivers put together! ... major advantage for MS.

Now is this MS's fault ... no, but many (like me) will always question his real ability (not at winning WC's) but as a driver because we have nothing (anymore) to judge him against.

The absolutely best thing that could happen to MS, is Kimi or Alonso winning this year and then next year and the year after they have the hardest, clean fight for the WC ever seen. This would RAISE MS ability as a driver in my eyes if he won, or even pushed them hard.

Starting every race from Pole, cruising to hollow victories because the rest of the grid cannot build a descent car to save themselves does NOT make MS a great driver ... just a great team builder and now he is reaping the benefit of having by FAR the best car on the grid, with a powder puff number 2 driver who could never push him, left alone even have the mental strength to try.

When MS started to push Senna back in the 90's he looked like he was going to be a star ... but that was never allowed to play out. Senna's car in 94' was a piece of **** and thus MS romped to 3 relatively easy wins (I think). Senna gone thus only the FIA were going to take that WC away from MS.

In 95' he had absolutely NO opposition really ... Hill was still trying to work out whether he really had it as a driver or not.

Then he moved to Ferrari. This gave Hill and JV the chance to get soft WC's because THEY now had no opposition, other than the occasional miracles performed by MS.

We then watched MS race against himself for 4 or so years as the demons (like I mentioned earlier ... the first Ferrari WC became mentally like his first ever, 'cause it was so bloody hard with such huge Tifosi, etc.) fought him. This helped Hakenin win his 2 ... yes he was fast but against solid WC opposition in good cars he would have not had it so easy.

Thus once MS finally cracked the code and got Ferrari over the line ... it became relatively easy. Ferrari had finally remembered how to make race winning cars and Bridgestone had their act together and MS was now relaxed ... thus in rolled some very, very easy WC's.

Take 2003 for example, Kimi should really have won that one ... but cracked under the pressure (again the demons) at Suzuka where MS was trying as hard as he good to give the WC away with a shockingly poor drive ... and that was only little pressure really!

MS is bloody fast and those early years at Ferrari were exciting but he has way to many flaws and he simply cracks under pressure ... and if he had real pressure (like a Senna or Prost challenge) he would NOT be winning! Instead he has a pack of virgins snapping at his heals ... making him look better than he is.

Pete

 

just read the autobiography, lol my mind is a sponge for useless info

 

Steve Mc Queen then Elvis (the boat race in Clambake)

 

Been there! Done that! One of the most happiest days in my life!

 

PSk:
F1 is a team sport. When Michael needed help securing the World Championship Rubens put in a brilliant drive to win at Suzuka. As Ruben's won Kimi had no chance for the WC. Kimi needed to win Suzuka and Michael not finish in the points in order for Kimi to be WC. But Rubens was a team player and won Suzuka. Thus making sure that his team mate Michae schumacher won a deserving WC. After all Michael had won more races than anyone else in 2003 and was greatest driver that year.

 

I do agree that RB saved MS's bacon that day ... ... if Kimi had been leading, I doubt MS would have finished in the points ... !

And yet many of you believe he should be put above Prost, Senna and Fangio, 'cause statistics show 7 WC's. Sorry I need more proof than that.

I admire MS, but I have my feet on the ground and rate him accordingly.
Pete

 

Exactly. It IS an advantage to have something to fall back on if being a race car driver didn't work out, and it is also an advantage to not have to worry about where the money is going to come from for you to pay the electric or the utility bills. Like I said, NOT TO TAKE ANYTHING AWAY FROM SENNA'S ABILITY AS A DRIVER!!!!

Didn't most of the drivers in F1 had to start with a lesser team first? How many drivers can you think of that just waltzed right into an awesome team from the start? The Lotus-Honda Senna was in was no less competitive than say the Jordan-Ford or the Bennetton-Ford of the early 90's. The only driver I can think of that didn't have to was J.V. as he just simply walked right into Williams, yes, he was a CART Champion, but CART is no F1. Schumacher had to lie to Eddie Jordan to get behind the wheel at Spa. Also, to say that Senna's Williams was piece of s**t is a little overboard, don't you think? Williams took the Championships for 2 years in the role with Mansell and Prost, with ease I might add, and I would dare say that the Renault powered Williams are still better than the Ford powered Benettons that year with ease. Like I said before, there will be no way, what so ever to determine who is really the greatest of all time, but with 7 championships so far, he has to and should be considered as one of the top 10 ever, regardless who he drove against. So what if MS was lucky to be born at the right time when for whatever reason, all the other good racing DNAs never made it to F1, tough, such is life. Also, if records have no merit at all then why in the world do we even bother talking about this right now? As nothing is ever valid or invalid, frankly, this point-counterpoint is pretty stupid if you ask me, fun maybe, but pretty stupid.

I do agree with what you said about the drivers these days, which just makes drivers like Fangio even more remarkable as he was truely a gentleman racer based on incidents that we have discussed long before in the older threads.

 

*LOL* The painting part or being in the Ferrari pit at Monza?

 

I have been at the Ferrari pit in Monza a few times and it is simply the best honor a Ferrari fanatic can have.

 

Agree.

Senna did not start in the Lotus-Honda, but a Toleman ... which was close to a Minardi at the time (maybe a bit harsh on Toleman . Note Senna actually led a race in a Toleman ... how many Minardi drivers have done that?

Prost ... maybe?

Well this is the main point ... and I actually think the Benetton Ford was a better car than we all give it credit for. Remember Roy Bryne (sp?) was working for Benetton and this car was the FIRST with the modern aero thinking like ALL cars are nowadays, and I have read that it actually was brilliant aerodynamically ... thus maybe made up for the lack of HP (?).

Also we do KNOW that the Williams had a handling imbalance issue (remember 94' was the first year after they banned hydo syspension and Williams got it wrong returning to springs and normal shocks) ... thus Senna was struggling and thus able to do a few fast laps in qualifying but unable to keep it on the track for a race ... hence the spin offs.

Agree ... just not better than Senna or Prost

Agree ... but my point is that simple statistics do NOT show the real picture ... it is way more complicated than that.

Maybe Fangio's 5 WC's should not be taken so seriously either ... 'cause most of HIS opposition were rich playboy drivers. Definitely the 55' WC was a walk in the park with far supperior machine. The 56 and 57 were tough, but the one in the Alfa Romeo would have also been a walk in the park. Thus Fangio really only won 2 , maybe 3 WC's that he had competition on.

Also looking at Prost ... he won 4, but we all know that the one in the Williams was so rediculously easy 'cause the Williams was the only car to have that year ... thus Prost really only won 3 where he had competition (but that still puts him above Senna).

EDIT: So the question is how many WC's has MS won with competition? ... I put it as low as 2, ie. 2001 and 2003. The rest have been a walk in the park with far supperior equipment or the only opposition dying on him before the season got serious.

This puts MS equal to Senna ... but Senna wins because he HAD REAL serious competition called Prost and Mansell in race winning cars!

Pete

 

Michael is alive to celebrate and bask in the glory of his 7 World Championships and Senna is dead!

 

Pete,

I have to agree with you with a lot of what your saying, however, Alain always had the best teams, fortunately he did not race for Ligier in 1992 and his first year at McLaren 80 was not a great car but he made the most of it.

Fangio always raced for the best teams but he was always far and away the best driver.

Clark the Lotus was excellent but fragile, he may have been the greatest of all, he died in similar cirmcumstances to Senna. The 68 Lotus went on to win the championship with G. Hill and Clark would have really been fast that year as he won the first race.

M.S. built the Bennetton team around him with Brawn and Byrne. He did a fantastic job however in 92 and 93 he won one race each year, though the Benetton Chassis was excellent. It really came good in 94 (but there are circumstances) surronding that car. Where he showed how great he was was at Ferrari through 96-99 with an inferior car he excelled and was the true champion in my opinion of 96 and 97. In 98 and 99 he did a very good job but MH did so as well. My only doubt of him being the greatest of all time (though he is by stats) is that he never had the teammate of the others (GP Champions). Also he still makes mistakes that the other Greats of their Era didn't. He also was during a period of time that didn't have the Great Competitors in their prime such as Piquet, Mansell, Lauda, etc.

Overall MS will always be considered the greatest driver of his generation and arguably the greatest of all time. But you have to look at the bigger picture than just stats, which you and many others have.

Regards,
Tony T.

P.S. Racerx 3117 great posts don't get yourself involved with children who have watched F1 on videos for the last couple years, to see it live and understand F1 without making stupid comments is what the difference is between Knowledge (i.e. PSK and Jon K.) and you know who.

 

I just had another thought.

For all those that cannot look past statistics and records. There is a way to see if a WC winner had competition that year, and that is the winning point margin.

If the season was close and thus a real fair battle the second place driver in the WC will be close in points to the first place driver.

Many of MS's WC's have been won where the second place driver (usually RB) has less than half the points ... thus soft walk in the park championships, **** RB was even helping him.

As Mr Payne pointed out (about 20 posts back) for the 10 years that Prost competed he was usually less than 20 points back from the winner or WON ... now that is a competitive period of F1.

The current period of F1 is UNCOMPETITIVE, except maybe for this year where Kimi and Alonso will hopefully fight it out, but maybe they won't and Kimi will dominate the rest of the season (yawn).

Pete

 

Couldn't agree more.

 

Agree

Pete
ps: Isnt this colour fun ...

 

As far as I know his father used to be a brick layer and his mother used to sell hot dogs and stuff like that at a Kart track and thats where M.S. started out.
Who else is got any info. on this???

 

Your exactly correct, until he got taken unter Willi Weber's Management and hence MBZ. They funded his F3 Program and later the Mercedes Junior F1 Program that paid for his Jordan ride in 1991 at SPA. He had a great teacher at MBZ under Jochen Mass, who he credits with a lot of things. At the time people thought that Heinz Harald Frentzen was the most gifted of the Junior Drivers, but Michael put him in the shade in F1. History has since shown what MS was capable of.

By the way I am a Senna Fan, however, I realize and appreciate Michael's gift as a truly outstanding talent of a generation. I just think it is difficult to compare drivers of different Era's. Michael is for sure the greatest driver of his generation and arguably the best. But we will never know as others have said, what if Clark hadn't died? G. Villenueve (who I think was the fastest driver there has ever been), and of course Senna.

Tony

 

Senna might be dead, but he did more in his life than everybody put together in this threat. His motor racing facts will always shadow all the crap mentioned in here.

 

If that is the case, by your definition, with the McLaren-Honda being what it was, both Senna and Prost should be minus one WC each at least, as the McLaren-Honda was the car to have as well. Granted that they were racing each other, but it was not as impressive as if Prost had beaten Senna by driving a Lotus-Ford or a Ferrari and vice versa for Senna. And on the same token, Senna did not beat anyone for the WC with an inferior machine on a inferior team either, he won all his WC driving for McLaren-Honda and we can all agree on that in the late 80's and early 90's, the McLaren-Honda combo was the one to have. The Jordan-Ford was not exactly a state of art machine either, so Schumacher had also proved himself in a lesser machine just like Senna did or perhaps the Toleman was not that bad of a machine either? Don't you see that you are just going around in a circle chasing a tail that does not exist??

Also, you are telling me that the 94 William and 95 William are not up to par with Bennetton?? That is a pretty big claim to prove I think. And if that is the case, then either Hill was a genius for being able to keep up with Schumacher through the 94 and 95 seasons or that Senna's ability was no longer there for him to control a not so ideal car in 94. So which is it then? Hill should be given more credit or Senna was not as good as everyone think he was??

Face it, there is no end to this arguement as to who is the best. You feel that Prost is above them all, great. There are Senna fans here that are willing to give up a kidney each to bring Senna back and to prove that he is the best ever, great too. Fact is, we will never know and none of these posts have any true merit to stand on when you really dissect it down to the bone. And to dismiss what Fangio had done is totally BS, think of the fatality rate in his days, wasn't there some little name Sterling Moss or did we forgot about him too? Fact is, MS and JMF had a more successful F1 career than anyone else, so what if they are not the best as you or other fans seems to claim. MS has 7 and JMF has 5 with Prost being the closest with 4 titles but with the 93 title being so hallow as you had stated, then I guess he is only equal with Senna by having 3 so called real titles......did we have the chicken first or the egg??

 

Testacojones,

That just shows the mentality of certain children when they make those comments. I guess Clark wanted to die as well. Anyway enough of this guys nonsense.

Pete,

You make a great point about points (no pun intended), Prost could have easily been a 7 time champion he lost the championship in 84 by 1/2 a point to Lauda. He should have probably won it in 82 and 83 but the reliability of the cars then were terrible. Prost also had to deal with Mansell in 90. Maybe Prost was the greatest? Perhaps Clark? Fangio? Senna? Schumacher? To each there own. But to insult great drivers who lost there life, shows a childish, unknowledgeble and immature opinion. But than look at the source.

 

EDIT: Removed because I am an idiot ... and now understand the source reference.

Anthony,
I did not say that. I said that the 94 Williams had handling issues ... I guess I should have said INITIALLY. Gee everybody watching the 94 season knew that!

NO, Hill and Williams worked their butts off and managed to solve the handling issues. Cars in F1 do not stay the same for the whole season, they sometimes are changed completely. Hill (Damon) is a brilliant tester and developer of a car ... infact I can hardly think of anybody better, right up there with MS (IMO) and thus they engineered the problem out of the car ... especially by 95 and 96.

To support my lack of competition during the MS years I will do some research and publish the points difference between first and second in the WC, since 1950. Then I will offer my opinion on whether it was car advantage ONLY or a gifted driver. I will have to resort to looking at the other team drivers positions to 100% confirm the car advantage ... which will be difficult as in the Fangio days he would take over another team members car if his faulted. Number 1 status (deservingly for Fangio) had HUGE priveleges in those days.
Pete

 

Pete,

You misunderstood, I was saying what a great driver Prost was and he perhaps should have been a 7 time champion. I was referring to what that Putz Imperial's comment about Schumacher is a 7 time champion and Senna is dead. I agree with you 100%. I just didn't word it correctly.

Prost is my second favorite driver. Apologies if you thought I mean't anything against what you said.

Best Regards,
Tony

 

Tony,
Oh **** ... I need to read ... and I do appologise!

Will remove my comments from the post if I can.
Pete