planetf1.com

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/20258984

They listed Fangio as number 2 I guess Senna is No.1 then : ).
So far the list goes:-

Number 3 - Jim Clark
Number 4 - Michael Schumacher
Number 5 - Alain Prost
Number 6 - Sir Stirling Moss
Number 7 - Sir Jackie Stewart
Number 8 - Sebastian Vettel
Number 9 - Niki Lauda
Number 10 - Fernando Alonso
Number 11 - Alberto Ascari
Number 12 - Gilles Villeneuve
Number 13 - Nigel Mansell
Number 14 - Mika Hakkinen
Number 15 - Lewis Hamilton
Number 16 - Nelson Piquet
Number 17 - Emerson Fittipaldi
Number 18 - Jack Brabham
Number 19 - Graham Hill
Number 20 - Jochen Rindt

BBC should throw in Ide as #1, just to show up all those who said that these polls are so predictable.

But, personally, I'd have put Juan Manuel Fangio in position 1.

_________________

I also have one of these.

Chuffed with who is going to be number 1.

I am still scratching my head at Vettel being at 8 though, I would have Schumi higher on my personal list but I get the argument with him being 4.

I do not see a argument that at this stage Vettel is better than Alonso.

_________________
All Time Favorite: Ayrton Senna

Others: Damon Hill
Montoya

Current: Lewis Hamilition

The story about the 1950 Monaco GP left me in awe. Of course, all of the drivers in this BBC list achieved great things but those achievements are made up of quick decisions like that. Just amazing.

It is unfair to place Alain Prost just fifth. Actually, they should choose 10 best drivers in no particular order and say: these are to top drivers. How can you put Clark above Prost or Schumacher, or Sir Moss above Vettel, when they raced in completely different circumstances? BTW, even though being a Vettel fan, I think he is placed too early so high. Maybe in a couple of years. But he is top 10, nevertheless, just like Alonso or Lauda.

_________________
The end is near

That's always been my argument against these sort of lists. When you consider how F1 has evolved from Fangio's days to today, it seems almost impossible to draw comparisons in anything other than race wins, championships, etc. Somebody like Murray Walker is well placed to offer an opinion, but I have a hard time believing there are too many others on the 'BBC F1 team' in the same position. Autosport polling 217 different former and current F1 drivers a couple of years ago was probably the fairest way to do it, but even then...

Makes for interesting reading, nevertheless, and some cool stories come out of it, like the one about Fangio/Monaco/1950.

_________________
Currently cheering for: Felipe Massa; Nico Hulkenberg; Romain Grosjean; Felipe Nasr. Oh, and of course, the Toronto Maple Leafs

If you'd asked the BBC to do the same poll ten years ago Fangio would have been No1 and Senna would have been No2.

Yet somehow with neither having done anything for obvious reasons Senna has jumped up a place. I don't get it. It's like F1 Racing's polls seem to flucuate even thought they same people write them.

_________________
1994 1995 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

That's just it. Rankings are always based on personal opinions. Opinions can change during the years.

_________________
-Ayrton Senna fan-

2013 follower of :

Fernando Alonso

Prost 5th - Senna 1st. WTF?

_________________
"No matter how the subject was started, somehow Hamilton's name eventually pops up" -- Blinky McSquinty

I have an F1 racing mag from 1997 and Senna is number 1. In fact the top positions are fairly similar.

I seem to remember either Clark or Prost moving up even though neither had actually done anything since the last list. It just annoys me.

Like someone else said how can you really compare Fangio to Senna? Different style cars, different style tracks, different style attitudes in their respective eras.

_________________
1994 1995 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Where the hell is Sato?

_________________

Signature created by Adaemus

I enjoy all this just to see you squirm

_________________
All Time Favorite: Ayrton Senna

Others: Damon Hill
Montoya

Current: Lewis Hamilition

I am not so sure.

In 2004 F1 Racing Magazine did a fans poll where Senna won.

There will always be a argument for Schumi, Fangio and Prost though and I can get that and respect it. I just think Senna deserves to be number 1.

_________________
All Time Favorite: Ayrton Senna

Others: Damon Hill
Montoya

Current: Lewis Hamilition

But that is only your opinion just like these polls are someone else's. There is an argument to be had for every driver in history.

_________________
1994 1995 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Erm, I just said that by acknowledging that their is a argument for other drivers and also saying "I just think" I did not see it was fact Senna was best.

_________________
All Time Favorite: Ayrton Senna

Others: Damon Hill
Montoya

Current: Lewis Hamilition

I agree that comparsions are difficult, not only because the cars were so different in each era but also the rules. In Fangio's era, he not only had the best car available by some distance - often over 2 seonds a lap faster than the nearest rival - he could pretty much ask for any technical innovation available at the time without fear of penalties. Today's drivers and designers by comparison have to work within very strict regulations or face penalties for what might have been considered in the 50s and 60s as ridiculous (non)infringents. Also, despite the hue and cry about the Red Bulls or McLarens being 'fast' in comparison to the Ferrari (for example), today's cars are much closer to each other, the main difference being in the aerodynamics.

The problemwith making "best of....." lists with F1 as with just about any sport is that there is always that "old is gold" psychology in play. I am old enough to have seen Senna and Mansell racing and those days people agreed that Senna was a great driver but very few compared him with Clarke or Fangio because of the same reason. Now Senna is something of a martyr and so his unquestionable ability has risen even higher in everyone's esteem.

_________________
Vettel / Raikkonen / Button

Agreed. While I respect both Clark and Senna (even if I wasn't a fan of the latter), these polls seem almost based on what they were expected to achieve had they survived. Then you have the argument of racing in non-championship races and other formulae, I don't buy that for the best F1 drivers.

Let's assume Senna survived. He might have well won another championship and will have won more races, but I think he'd have equalled Prost at best. Schumacher was the rising star. Had Senna lost at Williams, a cert in 1994 the way it was going I think and 1995 Benetton were stronger, he may have moved to Ferrari and finished his career there. The 1996 car was a dog ad then assume Schumacher stayed at Benetton (ala Vettel 2012), he'd have probably been a 3x WDC there or Hill taking that. I honestly can't see that it was a guarantee he'd have been the best of all time.

The legacy is all to often bigger than reality.

_________________
"We can not drive slower, just to make the races more exciting." Alain Prost

Loved fangio, he's what got me interested in F1. To bad that his career was interupted by the war. Who knows how many titles he would have won.

The same as he always did given the F1 WDC wasn't officially brought in until 1950, after the war.

_________________
1994 1995 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

_________________

Can't agree with you there. MSC beat Hill by a solitary point in 1994, and with all due respect to Hill few would imagine him outscoring Senna in the same car at that stage of his career. It's highly likely Senna would have taken the title that year had he survived and all else remained equal.

1995 is more open to debate, although it's really impossible to say with any certainty. Hill was heavily criticised for a string of perceived driver errors that year. Again, it's difficult to imagine Senna making the same mistakes, so that title probably would not have been the walkover for Schumi it turned out to be.

From there things get even less certain. Although I think Senna was a far better driver than Hill, it's possible that Hill would have had enough experience to challenge Senna in 1996, although I still believe Senna would have taken Hill's title had they been in the same team. After that Senna's presence would have affected the driver market so who knows what would have happened with what teams. I don't think it's unrealistic to suggest that Senna would have had at least 5 titles under his belt, and that's even before he would have ended up at Ferrari

Its a crying shame we will never find what would have happened, I think Senna would have won in 1994 and 1995 would have been very close, but it is all speculation.

_________________
All Time Favorite: Ayrton Senna

Others: Damon Hill
Montoya

Current: Lewis Hamilition

Ayrton was seriously considering retirement even before the start of the 1994 season. With Prost gone, he seemed to lose a huge amount of motivation. Would Schumacher have provided him with another Prost-like rivalry? Maybe, but they were two completely different drivers. It's nice to think that Senna could've been a 5-time World Champion (at least), but it's a stretch to imagine he'd have been racing until he was 37 - if not longer.

_________________

I also have one of these.

Brabham down in 18th is a disgrace, therefore this list is meaningless to me.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition
Best Round Result: 1st (Monaco 2012)
Podiums: 4
2013 Championship Standing: 78th

I don't know why a minority of people take these lists so seriously. Half the time they are written by F1 fans that "only" (no disrespect intended to the wonderful journalists in MotorSport, Autosport, et al) have a wonderful gift for journalism but they are still no more than an opinion. Even the opinion of a current driver is no more than that...worth listening to yes, but still not fact as so many factors distinguish each generation from the other, and different cars from each other.

I hadn't heard that Senna was considering retiring, but it was a couple of years before I started watching F1.

But I'm sure he recognised Schumi as an upcoming rival, and its likely that this would have given him the motivation he needed to continue?

Interesting that you think they were completely different drivers, as I've always thought they were v similar (edit - extremely aggressive/win at all costs). Why do you think this?

I suspect he was comparing Schumacher with Prost, not Senna.

With Prost gone, Senna was pretty much the only giant left in the sport. Schumacher was a rising star, but not quite there yet. Senna wanted to be the best so it's no surprise he was feeling a bit maudlin with no apparent competition around. I suspect that once Schumacher gave him the challenge he craved he would have shelved any retirement thoughts. After all, it's documented that he phoned Prost to try to persuade him to return, which indicates that he still wanted to remain in the sport rather than leave it altogether. I also don't doubt that he would have ended up at Ferrari at some point as LdM has already alluded to, so I see him being in the sport for another 4-5 years at least before hanging up his helmet.

This is correct; he was going to end his career at Ferrari, and Marlboro were going to put up the money. Jean Todt was already there, the financial backing was being arranged, and they wanted the fastest man in F1, to start winning titles again.
When Senna got killed, the road lay open for Schumacher to join them instead, Weber making use of the Benetton cheating to end his contract early.

I'm a bit surprised to see Fangio at number 2. Senna wouldn't agree with that. But then, I was surprised to see Prost end up behind Schumacher.

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota

I think he would have done for nothing else that to end his career with Ferrari which he was determined to do. When Sid Watkins tried to get him to quit he was determined not to.

_________________
All Time Favorite: Ayrton Senna

Others: Damon Hill
Montoya

Current: Lewis Hamilition

Honestly who cares about these lists. Prost admired Senna no doubt, as he admired Fangio and Schumacher and Vettel, I doubt he really gives a fuck. All great drivers.

Personally I'd have had both Clark and Fangio above Senna, but who cares, it's all just opinions, not ever anything you could objectively prove in any way. Fun though, and lets face it, you could make an argument for virtually anyone on the list to be up the top.

_________________
"you can never be too paranoid"

Didn't notice. Crap list!

Vettel at 8...higher than Hakkinan and Alonso...makes the list Worthless...
if i must speculate on No1.....i would say Takuma Sato...c'mon Murray prove me wrong

in all fairness ... he has done more in less time, which is why he is so high

IMO they should leave off any current F1 driver (except Schumacher) until they retire. But the list IS useless. I really dont see how Senna could be #1, I have a feeling its mostly down to his legacy and because he died on track people think far greater of him than they would have if he had lived. One of his WDC's was won by intentionally crashing Prost in the first corner because he wasnt first into turn 1. I give him extreme respect for stopping on track to help out Comas after his accident, but that doesnt make you the best F1 driver ever.

They should have separated the list into decades or groups of decades. Like 1950-1970 and 1971-1990, 1991-2000, 2001-present. The eras are just too different to compare directly. You cant compare Senna to Vettel, In Senna's day there was a very very real threat of dying in the car and it limited how much you could push, the cars were far more dominant as well than they are now as well.

I spoke to someone from BBC about this as, I too was outraged. They explained that if they had included Sato in this chart he would have taken the all top 25 places himself.

What the BBC don't say is that this isn't actually a chart of the top drivers, but a chart of who is closest to Sato's greatness!

_________________
Button - Hamilton - Di Resta

A few things here... Senna being Number 1 should come as no surprise as by now, we should all realize that too many people see him as some sort of deity/demigod and his far too early demise elevated his abilities more than tenfold. As for him winning the '94 championship because, if Hill won it, then Senna would surely have won it by a kentucky mile. For the sake of argument let's see how Hill might have won the '94 title by a larger margin than anyone else because of other possibilities (remember, this is just speculative as those whom say they are certain without a doubt Senna would be the '94 champ through nothing more than mere speculation)...

Discounting that Hill had already bested his vastly superior teammate 2 out of 3 times, let's say that for arguments sake Senna had walked away from the crash that day... Schumacher was already leading the championship by a decent margin over both Hill and Berger, while Senna had amassed all of ONE BIG DONUT to his credit in the first 3 races of the '94 Season. Now, knowing how competitive Senna was and how upset he would become when not in the fight for the championship and knowing how he would allow frustrations to get the better of him throughout his career, how about this speculative scenario?...

Seeing Schumacher dominating everyone including himself, Senna gets flustered and pushes the envelope a bit too much in his bid to prove he was the ordained chosen one by the greatest power known to mythology, and causes accidents because he was there to compete and was in no way ready to accept anything outside of leading races, allowing Hill to take advantage of such errors to take control of the season, netting him the championship in 1994. I'm not saying this would have been the case. I'm simply saying that if speculation is to be used to state someone could have/would have been this that and the other, were it not for certain circumstances, the same thing can used to forge counter arguments to concoct other scenarios in other peoples' minds just the same?

Bottom line is this poll is a bit flawed for many reasons and the one thing I think we can all agree on is that they mucked up the top 3 spots which SHOULD consist of Prost, Schumacher and Senna (in no particular order though my vote would be Schumacher #1, Prost #2, Senna #3 for reasons I've stated countless times over the years).

The one thing I think everyone says that is true is that it's not fair to compare drivers from different eras. While I think that's true, my reason is likely different from most people because I think that in all the Pre-'90's and possibly 80's eras is that the difference in performance was often much greater from one team to another and back then, some drivers were afforded such a vast advantage it was almost a walk in the park to the championship. As well, factoring in how few races took place in some years, there was very little race time to develop and refine cars further to close the gap to the leaders and instead, teams focussed on the next year. Today, with the cars being so vastly close to one another in terms of performance, it's much, MUCH more difficult to stand out as one of the best, so when a driver of the caliber of Alonso, Vettel, Hamilton, Raikkonen, and the all-conquering Schumacher is consistently and constantly challenging for wins it says a whole lot about them. It's unfortunate to see/hear so many people saying some drivers are crappy or don't belong (outside the few we know would've never qualified and instead bought their way in) when the fact is the cars they are driving are key factors as to why they can't squeeze those last few tenths to propel them further up to challenge at the front. 8th through 16th on the grid is usually separated by less than 2 seconds. Unfortunately some drivers are better than they are given credit for but either their cars don't have the speed in them or they aren't comfortable enough to push harder to gain that last bit of speed. Some drivers like Alonso, Hamilton, Vettel and Raikkonen are simply better at adapting to a car and learning how to overcome the shortcomings to still be fast regardless of being absolutely comfortable and this year 2 drivers in particular come to mind... Alonso and Raikkonen. Ferrari overall a bit tough to manage over a lap and Raikkonen not liking the power steering on his Renault yet both have performed really well all season long. Vettel did well enough but it wasn't until several upgrades and tweaks that he was able to squeeze that last little bit of speed the car was lacking.

Either way IMHO it's much tougher to stand out today than it was in prior eras and this list is a bit off.

_________________
Second place is the first loser!

1. Andrea De Cesaris.

_________________
"I don't make mistakes, I make prophecies that immediately turn out to be wrong."

Be calm, they've not revealed the #1 yet, there's still time. But since it's the BBC, they can't afford another controversy just yet.

_________________
"We can not drive slower, just to make the races more exciting." Alain Prost

Sir Jack at 18 is just ridiculous.
He won three WDC for crying out loud, and won one of those by literally pushing his car across the finish line!
It's the stuff legends are made of!

And Rindt at 20?
I know he 'only' won one WDC but he was dead at the time so most other people's exploits pale by comparison.

In my opinion (the magic words on any poll such as this) Juan-Manuel Fangio should be number one.
Why?
Because viewing the videos of his races is scary just to watch, never mind driving!
(And that opinion is shared by the likes of Michael Schumacher)