planetf1.com

I'm slightly controversial in that I believe that Senna was better than Prost. Not based on the "Senna" documentary (haven't seen it I've heard it's biased), but on trawling through old races and their results and footage.

To a lesser extent, but perhaps more controversially, I believe that Schumacher was better (i.e. faster) than Hakkinen and Raikkonen. I say lesser extent because they were never teammates. I also believe he was faster than Alonso.

If you asked me if Schumacher was faster than Hamilton or Vettel I would say I have no idea. Particularly Vettel could even be the best yet.

Eva09: nothing contraversial about your assessments of drivers. All sound quite reasonable.

There is no doubt that Senna was faster than Prost (or anyone else too) in quali, and slightly in the races, when they clashed 1988 to 1993. Lauda reckons he'd like to have seen Prost against Senna when he partnered Prost in 1984-5!

Imo the advantage Schumacher would have over Hakkinen and Raikkonen would not necessarily be in speed, but in his out-of-car abilities, ie team-working and car development for so many hours longer than other drivers.

Imo Alonso's all-round racer speed is under-rated because he has not had a top-rated car since 2007. This always downgrades perceptions of driver speed. With such close-matched drivers and teams as Alonso/Ferrari, Hamilton/McLaren-Mercedes and Vettel/Red Bull-Renault, and maybe Raikkonen/Lotus_Renault, any driver who is giving away a tenth or two in his car cannot dominate.

_________________
http://grandprixratings.blogspot.com

@Eva: Senna was an expert qualifier but yeah like POB said in race trim he was good but not better than Prost. But if it rained no one could touch him. POB is quite spot on about the rest. With the current drivers Vettel Lewis Kimi and Alonso even I cant say who really is fast. Each shows good pace on random days. Sometimes the car is bad so it difficult to judge.

_________________
Loading Quote.......
--------------------
PF1 Pick 10
Aus13: 2nd
Chi13: 3rd

While we're at it, let's try a really controversial opinion.

Rubens Barrichello was a slightly faster driver than Jenson Button, at least in qualifying.

Wet weather ability not a lot in it, Rubens beat Jenson sometimes but perhaps Jenson was slightly better.

2006 Jenson was clearly faster, although Barrichello had to drive Michelin tyres that Button had driven for 4 years before.

2007 and 2008 wasn't a whole lot in it, the car was a dog really and there was nothing in it. In the qualifying sessions both completed it was 17-16 to Barrichello. When both drivers finished it was 10-8 to Barrichello.

2009 Barrichello had a problem with the brakes for the first 7 races that couldn't immediately be fixed. Jenson outqualifies Barrichello 6-1. The brakes on Barrichello's car weren't able to be modified until Silverstone. From then on he outqualified Jenson 9-0 and was consistently faster.

Having written that no it probably isn't that controversial.

I would personally rate Senna and Schumacher above Hakkinen, Prost, Alonso, Raikkonen.

Current drivers who could compare to Senna and Schumacher, I can only say Hamilton and Vettel.

_________________
The end is near

What you say here will cause some fans to think it is highly contraversial!

The excellent analysis you've done on Barrichello coincides exactly with my findings on Rubens. He was a vastly under-rated driver. As you mention, if he'd had the brake manufacturer of his choice at Brawn in 2009, the winning scores would have been close to equal between him and Jenson. For half the season as you so accurately highlight, Rubens was hobbled; yet he still equalled JB's pre-race time season average, and was only 0.1% slower in race-time season average. These according to my rating system.

My measurement/comparisons are largely speed based, and in 2003 and 2004 Rubens was so close to Michael's speed, and dare I say it, somewhat faster than Jenson and Coulthard in those seasons. My stats are season averages so consistency automatically comes into it.

_________________
http://grandprixratings.blogspot.com

I do agree with you. I closely followed them during the 2009 season and it does happened like you say. However, i wouldn't say BAR is better than BUT. Who cares about qualifying? Jenson was more consistent in races. Look at brazil 2009, that made me a Button fan; and i used to be a passionate fan of Rubens !!

As for the Senna vs Prost comparison...You're underrating Prost!! Sooner or later you'll realize that AP is without peer in the list of F1 greats. Of all the greatest 80s drivers, only Senna was able to match a rather aged Prost as a teammate. And apparently he performed better than him in 1989... according to some due to being favored by Honda, and Ron Dennis removing support to Prost once he found out he was leaving for Ferrari. But even if these rumors were false, look at this graph:



Even in 1989 he lead Senna in points through most of the season!!

Prost -unlike the great Ayrton- instead matched or beat all the who-is-who of 80s drivers in the same car, except Nelson Piquet (who respected AP a lot.) Schumacher -one of the top 5 drivers ever, no doubt- never had to face a strong teammate {except an extremely old Piquet who had lost the speed after his 1987 tamburello crash}. In 1990 people thought the great Nigel Mansell was going to soundly beat Alain Prost; the opposite happened. Yes, i bet Ferrari favored AP, but AP got almost double the points of Nigel!

And finally, if the current points system had been in place during the 80s, AP would have been seven times world champion...

Some people have said the same about Jacques Villeneueve

Jacques is one of only a handful of drivers I dislike, but he was decent in 1997. Plus he made some silly choices in regards to what team he raced for. After 1997 he was never in a top flight car again.

_________________
All Time Favorite: Ayrton Senna

Others: Damon Hill
Montoya

Current: Lewis Hamilition

Comments like that get thrown around a lot. The fact is that if the points system then was the same as it is now, all the drivers would have approached the races differently. The way the system was, Prost won only 4 (for want of a better word than "only") titles and you can't improve his standing by saying 'if the sytem was different..'.

_________________

I also have one of these.

He surely deserved it. I am just sorry that modern generation of F1 fans haven't seenAlain Prost in action. He was dominating F1 for 10 years. Seven titles is what he really deserved - not to undermine Lauda, Rosberg, Senna and alike, but he wasn't named "Professor" for nothing. No other driver ever had such a rank.

_________________
The end is near

If the modern geeration was really that interested i am sure they would have come up with ways to see for themselves how arlier drivers raced and how good they were. But then again some of them need to take off their Rose Tinted glasses and open their minds. (Yes i am looking at lewis fans). He is very good but still a long way from being great.

_________________
Loading Quote.......
--------------------
PF1 Pick 10
Aus13: 2nd
Chi13: 3rd

True, but Senna had a high number of mechanical failures during the season, while Prost didn't. So this conclusion is again based on the numbers, but is more difficult to make when looking at the facts... And if you say that Prost matched or beat all the great drivers of the 80's, and Senna matched / beat Prost during 88 and 89 and 90, then I could also state that Prost and Senna were the fastest / best drivers of the whole lot.

I don't even think when Senna was teamed up with Prost, Prost was already over his peak or "aged". When he teamed up with Senna he was at his 8th year in F1, and as we saw with Senna later on in 1993, you could very well be at your peak entering your 9th year in F1 and perhaps even more.

Personally I do believe Prost was over his peak in 1993, but his skills combined with an extremely dominant Williams car made him get his 4th title, although, compared to what Hill and Senna did, not with a great feeling of dominance.

But that doesn't take away Prost will always be named as an F1 all-time great, which he definitely is.

_________________
-Ayrton Senna fan-

2013 follower of :

Fernando Alonso

S H U M I

S H U M I

Although I really cannot say who is 'best of all', and know drivers cannot be compared unless they were team-mates: if I had to pick one driver it would be Prost. He had all the talents necessary and seemed to have no weaknesses. When paired with Senna AP acknowledged Ayrton's superior speed and said exactly what Lauda said in 1984: 'When you've been racing for years you can no longer go all-out as you did when you were young'.

Drivers can only be 'sort of 'compared/discussed when at their peaks. Imo Prost was cruising in 1993 and took no chances, but I reckon he could have scored about three more wins if he'd needed to for the WDC. At Spa he let Damon go after their pitstops.... and was very supportive.

To me in 1990 Prost showed what he could do when he gave Senna such a tough challenge; imo one of the greatest season-fights in history. At least as good as Nuvolari and Moss in off-pace cars.

Talking of off-pace: my commnets about Damon Hill are not meant to be derogatory. We are discussing and comparing drivers and their performances at the very top. Damon and Jacques were never as fast as Schumacher; just as Emerson Fittipaldi was off-pace compared to Peterson, Stewart, Cevert, Graham Hill and Brabham were off-pace compared with Moss, Clark and Surtees. And today Webber and Button are not as fast as Alonso, Vettel and Hamilton.

If one brings in personal background: for me Damon has the be one of the most respected drivers: he started late in life, did not have any financial backing, which was why he raced more affordable motor cycles; he also did not have the karting background which Michael picked up on and crowded Damon in traffic to good effect. Damon also had to cope with leading the Willams team after Senna's death, as well as the well-funded and fast new team-mate Coulthard; then the competitive Jacques V, all the time having the Williams team's background-chirping about his speed while fighting Michael/Brawn/Byrne and the ultra-competitive Benetton team. I also happen to know that someone high up in F1 tried to keep Damon out of F1 due to a years earlier issue with Graham Hill; so unjust. Damon's Title must be probably the hardest won of all. He had the strength of character, and racing ability, to overcome all this. He was always so ethical and fair in his driving; I always wanted him to beat MSC purely as a person.

_________________
http://grandprixratings.blogspot.com

Do you not ever think there was a reason why this was so?

_________________
"I am a believer, but I start each Grand Prix with 195 liters of fuel behind me," he explains. "I don't rely entirely on God, I rely on Prost."

Every failure has a reason, but was it because Senna drove his car into a failure or not? We don't know...

_________________
-Ayrton Senna fan-

2013 follower of :

Fernando Alonso

Not sure why you felt it was necessary to just label Lewis fans with having this mind set considering other fans of other drivers hold the opinion of their respective drivers being the best

Plus, you could of at least said, 'Some' lewis fans and not all. I don't think Lewis is the best driver ever or in fact worthy of the top 10 yet. In fact I'd rank LH anywhere from 15th to 20th.

Alain Prost is the best driver ever for me, especially considering the team mates he was beaten.

_________________
Vodafone Mclaren Mercedes

@Moore: You should check out the Lewis on top gear thread then you'll get to know what Im talking about. Oh and BTW I too am a fan of Lewis.

_________________
Loading Quote.......
--------------------
PF1 Pick 10
Aus13: 2nd
Chi13: 3rd

Don't worry I've seen, but that isn't every lewis fan, it's a few select individuals who worship too much of Lewis Hamilton.

_________________
Vodafone Mclaren Mercedes

Also I mentioned "Rose tinted glasses". I thought that was a dead give away of who I was talking about... But anyways

_________________
Loading Quote.......
--------------------
PF1 Pick 10
Aus13: 2nd
Chi13: 3rd

Me too. And this is nothing against LH... I love watching Lewis race and will pitch for him at any race, but i can mention 14 drivers more important (or with higher achievements) in F1 than Lewis. In no order, with reason for being there:

1. Schumacher -- record smasher, maybe best driver ever
2. Prost
3. Senna -- idol of practically every modern F1 driver, maybe best driver ever
4. Piquet -- 3x WDC in different conditions and against extremely tough competition
5. Mansell -- lots of races won against perhaps the most brilliant F1 grid
6. Jackie Stewart -- record smasher
7. Jim Clark -- record smasher
8. Niki Lauda -- almost 4x WDC, maybe best driver ever
9. JM Fangio -- record smasher, maybe best driver ever
10. Tazio -- legend
11. Alberto Ascari -- legend
12. Graham Hill -- 3x WDC
13. Jack Brabham -- 3xWDC, one of them with HIS OWN CAR
14. Emerson Fittipaldi -- 2xWDC who only stopped winning because he decided to form his own team.

there, fourteen. and i could go on

15. Mario Andretti -- won almost any kind of motorsport competition
16. Mika Hakkinen -- stopped Schumacher in his prime
17. Carlos Reutemann
18. Gilles Villeneuve

I'm sure Lewis would agree with me in this one.

Hill was as down and dirty as Schumacher IMO!

Agreed with all except Reutemann. I also think Fittipaldi, Villenueve and maybe Graham Hill are debatable but I would probably put him behind at least two of them. I would also put Moss ahead of Hamilton. So yes overall i would agree 15-20 is about right.

Why?

I believe my present position would be described as loitering with intent... But I will acknowledge that there were moments when Hill gave Schumacher a dose of his own medicine. Not that the old cheater took the hint of course.

And my apologies to Patrick for cutting down his explanation in the quote, but I stand by my long-held conviction that Damon Hill won 2 world titles, and that it is only FIA-short-sightedness and stupidity that keeps one of his trophies in the wrong cupboard.

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

Maria de Villota

No probelm Fiki, I enjoy your posts and views.

And Flavio's latest list of greats is good; imo Hamilton does not lack anything in the cockpit; he is a great driver, one of the fastest and most talented. I wanted him to win the title in 2012 based on his speed; he could have had eight wins, but for those four slow pit stops, a grid penalty or two and a mech failure ...

Perhaps Lewis is a bit too emotional/impulsive? Like that fast driver from Colombia?

This thread and posts are very interesting. Let's keep it going.

_________________
http://grandprixratings.blogspot.com

Schumirules: in terms of topping the driver speed ratings on my system, car-neutral, Michael reigned for 11 seasons 1995-2005; this is a record not only for F1 but for all grand prix history.

Uniquely though for ten seasons between Senna's death in 1994 and 2005, there was no driver as fast. Closest was Hakkinen who was at best 0.1 slower. But in 2005 newboys Raikkonen and Alonso arrived and were equal in speed to Michael by my rating system.

Next longest reign was Senna's 9 seasons 1986-1994.

Then a tie at 8 seasons, between Prost (1983-1990) and Alonso (2005-2012).

Ranked fourth with 6 seasons at the top: Moss (1956-1961), Clark (1963-1968) and Stewart (1968-1973).

This ranking/rating of mine does not mean these drivers are equal or can be directly compared. I am just tabling the longevity of their reigns, as measured/scored by my system, which is based primarily on relative speeds.

So many other factors affect driver performance, including team/car, designers and other staff (moving-joining teams), rivals and the level of competition.

_________________
http://grandprixratings.blogspot.com

This stuff is the absolute bane of the forum, nicely debunked

_________________
o·ver·rat·ed - overestimation of skills or abilities, anything that is given too much credit and hype.

Doesn't really matter does it?

No it doesn't but discussion is the whole point of the forum and you should not expect to be able to make a claim you are unwilling to substantiate without question.

I don't covet Michael's 7 world titles as much as his 91 race wins. That is my favourite record. If he had 6 titles he would still have the most. The chief difference would be it would make Vettel's task easier!

Nevertheless what you say is utter bollocks. Hill went into the last race 1 point behind, didn't finish, therefore Michael has 7 world titles.

Fiki is talking about the way Schumi won in 1994, rather than the points system. He must blame Schumi for Hill's retirement, which is far from "utter bollocks" as a lot of fans also believe that.

Just like some think Senna and Prost should have been stripped of their titles in 89 and 90 for similar incidents.

_________________
All Time Favorite: Ayrton Senna

Others: Damon Hill
Montoya

Current: Lewis Hamilition

Oh I interpreted youre answer wrong, sorry I thought you meant why was he down and dirty.

Substantiate? I've seen him make several aggressive moves right out of the Michael playbook.

Weaving that time in Canada, blocking aggressively in a few occasions (one was in Aida), blocking Michael in Spa 98 before he got past, he also punted Michael off that time in Silverstone.

You'd get penalised for it these days probably, this was in the mid-late 90s a hangover of the Senna days.

The world title is the points system. Otherwise what's the point of having points? You might as well have 19 different races each year having standalone status.

Because unsportsman like conduct should be punished because its cheating.

If Schumi would have been punished for his last race incident in 1994 by just a small points deduction he would have lost the title. Many thought he should have gotten worse than that.

Whether I agree with Fiki or not, his point us far from "utter bollocks" like you said in my view.

_________________
All Time Favorite: Ayrton Senna

Others: Damon Hill
Montoya

Current: Lewis Hamilition

Oh wait, I lost it. Sorry what was his point again?

He thinks Schumi should have not won the title in 1994 based on his last race incident with Hill. He must blame Schumacher for it and felt he caused the crash on purpose in a unsportsman like way and therefore cheated.

Please correct me if I am wrong Fiki.

_________________
All Time Favorite: Ayrton Senna

Others: Damon Hill
Montoya

Current: Lewis Hamilition

Driver A takes trajectory through corner that several other drivers have taken on several laps in the race. Driver B is never ahead of Driver A. Driver A's right rear wheel hits Driver B's front left wheel from behind, damaging the suspension of Driver B slightly (and fatally).

If that is enough to warrant disqualification then you should probably exclude Takuma Sato from the 2003 Japanese Grand Prix for driving right across the apex of the corner and hitting another car.

Even if you are in a more deplorable move at Jerez 97 I still wouldn't handle it that way. Let's say Villeneuve is out of the race. Schumacher wins the title, but ban him for 3 races of the next season. That's how I would handle it. That makes Hill 1995 champion but they didn't do that.