[Driver] Who is now the best driver in F1?

[kartincolin]

Inevitably, when the answer to a question relies mostly on perception and personal favouritism, it descends into an argument rather than a discussion. To directly answer the question, there is no substantial evidence to support the theory that Hamilton is currently the best driver in Formula 1. There is always an element (be it big or small) of bias in journalism due to factors such as national pride.

Like I said before, the argument as to who is the best driver in Formula 1 can be wittled down to three drivers relatively easily: Hamilton, Alonso and Vettel. From there on in, it`s anybody`s guess.

[Born Racer]

Originally Posted by peckstar

and now because apparantly its ok to tick people off in italics at the bottom of the page. If you feel the need to tick someone off for accusing you off baiting please contact a moderator by private message, would have been much easier if you just said sorry for baiting you

For the clarification of all users (otherwise I would like to spare you all having to read diversions from the topic at hand), the italics were to represent that I was saying that with my mod hat on, thus differentiating between that and the discussion.

Now, onwards and upwards.

Originally Posted by kartincolin

Inevitably, when the answer to a question relies mostly on perception and personal favouritism, it descends into an argument rather than a discussion.

Like I said before, the argument as to who is the best driver in Formula 1 can be wittled down to three drivers relatively easily: Hamilton, Alonso and Vettel. From there on in, it`s anybody`s guess.

Yes, it's strange that one should argue, but the human face of the driver and driver support somehow engenders a very defensive attitude. I would be quite happy for anyone to rate any of those as the top because they've all done a lot to justify it, so congratulations to them; and as you rightly say, Colin, it's all a guess. To throw this one out there, what about Raikkonen? Would anyone consider him a contender? He's mightily consistent, makes few mistakes and is still very fast, even if his stunning qually pace of all has not manifested itself yet. For me, I need to see him for another season before I can get a sense of his placing among them.

[strider]

Originally Posted by Born Racer

To throw this one out there, what about Raikkonen? Would anyone consider him a contender? He's mightily consistent, makes few mistakes and is still very fast, even if his stunning qually pace of all has not manifested itself yet. For me, I need to see him for another season before I can get a sense of his placing among them.

In the GP+ Season Review, Alonso, Vettel and Hamilton are given 10 apiece in that order. Kimi is next up on 9.75. Personally I would have given him 10 also because I think that to finish 3rd in the championship, beating both McLaren drivers was an exceptional achievement.

I'd go so far as to say that over the whole season the McLaren was the best car, but there was far too much finger trouble.

[beau1]

Originally Posted by Born Racer

What about Alonso, Spritle, relative to Lewis, re the 'the car' thing?

Lewis started at a high level. When Alonso was a few years into F1, he was being beaten by Jarno Trulli. When Hamilton arrived in F1, he was almost the equal of Fernando Alonso.

Trulli never beat Alonso on overall points though nor on the amount of podiums in a season.

And then Hamilton became the equal of Jenson Button. A driver who's career would be well and truly over if it wasn't for the luck and combination of 2009.

I'm not saying Button is a bad driver but it is difficult to compare drivers with others in different stages of their career. Button is better now than he was in 2008 for example, Hamilton is about the same level whilst Alonso is much better than he was in 2007 (or 2004).
Schumacher wasn't as good as he was in 2006 but Raikkonen is much better than he was in 2009. People have different peaks and lows at different times.

[John Turner]

Originally Posted by IceMan_PJN

Lewis's biggest weakness is bad luck, unfortunately. His teammate over the past few seasons shown what good luck can get you. Case in point - Brasil 2012. Button was praised for his brilliant tactic of staying out on slicks instead of pitting for intermediate tires. It was just by dumb luck that it worked out for him, as it could have just as well been a huge blunder and made him look like an idiot. Had it instead been Lewis making the gamble, the rain would get worse and destroy his race.

Absolutely take issue with this regarding Button. He is widely regarded as one of the most astute drivers behind the wheel. He has an incredible amount of spare mental capacity when racing. Sure, whenever he makes a call it is a gamble but it is a calculated one and it may not always come off, but it is 'his' call and it has worked out on too many occasions for it to be called luck. Hamilton, on the other hand, relies on the team to make the calls and only questions it on occasions when they go wrong. It is true that he has had a lot of bad luck but then he is not alone in that. Button, too, has had some, albeit not as much, and in any event luck, good or bad, has always been a component in drivers careers. Of course, it is said that you also make your own luck and I believe the great Mario Andretti said something very sage to say about that. I'm not saying that Hamilton is not better as a pure racer than Button; he certainly was in 2012, but I'm merely pointing out that the above quoted statement is completely flawed.

In answer to the thread question my answer would be 'no' he is not the best in F1 at the moment, although he maybe the fastest. I still believe Alonso currently to be the best.

[Born Racer]

Good points about Button's calls, John. He's almost an integral member of the strategy team!

I believe it's so close to call that the debate is academic, albeit good fun to discuss, but only without people reacting so angrily to different opinions. Let's all remember that no-one is trying to convince each other that the Earth is flat, and enjoy the variation in perspectives.

[MarkG]

Originally Posted by Born Racer

Let's all remember that no-one is trying to convince each other that the Earth is flat, and enjoy the variation in perspectives.

Wise words. Trouble is, people do in fact try to convince others that their view is the only accurate one, and in a discussion like best drivers, it is only a personal view with no proven scientific fact, although some people do consider it scientific fact that driver-A is the best out there because he has won the championship.
To me, ( in my view, not scientific fact) winning championships is mostly about a car, not a driver, and has been thus for many years.
Greats didn't win championships every year that they competed (well ok, there was that German fellow that almost did, but he did have a good car ) so do some people think they weren't a "great" in the year they failed to win a championship? I don't. I'll bet the car he had, and what cars others had, had some bearing. Stirling Moss was a great.
To the original question, I say no, Hamilton isn't the best. However, I do think he's mighty close to who I do think is the best.

[BSchneiderFan]

I think we can agree that Vettel, Alonso and Hamilton (and, I would say, Button and Raikkonen) are operating at an incredibly high level - the equal of the groups of greats of the mid-80s and mid-60s. On his day, Webber can be up with them too - remember Silverstone. Beyond that, any further refinement is a matter of taste and opinion.

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by Born Racer

Let's all remember that no-one is trying to convince each other that the Earth is flat.....

I've had to stay away from this thread for several days.

I'm so shocked at the news.

[JeremySmith]

Originally Posted by MarkG

Wise words. Trouble is, people do in fact try to convince others that their view is the only accurate one, and in a discussion like best drivers, it is only a personal view with no proven scientific fact, although some people do consider it scientific fact that driver-A is the best out there because he has won the championship.
To me, ( in my view, not scientific fact) winning championships is mostly about a car, not a driver, and has been thus for many years.
Greats didn't win championships every year that they competed (well ok, there was that German fellow that almost did, but he did have a good car ) so do some people think they weren't a "great" in the year they failed to win a championship? I don't. I'll bet the car he had, and what cars others had, had some bearing. Stirling Moss was a great.
To the original question, I say no, Hamilton isn't the best. However, I do think he's mighty close to who I do think is the best.

I would have to disagree slightly.. For me winning championships is about all of the pieces falling into place.. The car,driver,car reliability,pit crew,team strategists,the amount of money a team has to throw at upgrades.. And last but not least lady luck..

[MarkG]

Originally Posted by JeremySmith

I would have to disagree slightly.. For me winning championships is about all of the pieces falling into place.. The car,driver,car reliability,pit crew,team strategists,the amount of money a team has to throw at upgrades.. And last but not least lady luck..

I would have to agree completely The driver's part is only a small part

[wnut]

Originally Posted by MarkG

I would have to agree completely The driver's part is only a small part

Funny how the same drivers consitently end up on top or thereabouts though!

hOw many points have Seb and Alonso scored than their team mates in the past 3 years?

[MarkG]

Not really, they're decent drivers, but Webber almost won a championship in that time and as much as I like Webber, I don't put him in the Alonso class.
Drivers have a part to play, and top drivers are in the mix always, but the part of a driver isn't so impacting as it was in earlier years. Those days when speed came with balls, cars weren't as reliable, drivers crunched gears, missed gear-changes, over-revved engines etc etc. Then, drivers played a bigger part in my view, and I was more in awe of drivers in those days. I would probably more enjoy watching F1 drivers all in Porsche Supercup type cars.
I love F1 and am an avid fan, but I don't think F1 is as good as it once was. Ridiculous braking distances, aero is king.... anyway I digress.

[JeremySmith]

Originally Posted by MarkG

I would have to agree completely The driver's part is only a small part

I don't think driving a car at 212MPH is a small part of the equation, do you really think it's that easy..

[wnut]

Originally Posted by JeremySmith

I don't think driving a car at 212MPH is a small part of the equation, do you really think it's that easy..

MarkG is right though, it is way easier than it used to be, and the penalties are not nearly as severe.
The bit where they fall off the circuit at high speed, and just keep the old foot planted and drive back on a few hundred metres later. There should be some sort of penalty for these mistakes, the old gravel traps used to at least penalise this behaviour!
Perhaps, if you get all 4 wheels over the track borders; white line; you get to serve a drive through. Don't know quite what the answer is, but it seems wrong that a winner can make several massive mistakes during the course of the race. Still I suppose the bumping into your competition still generally eliminates you from the race and penalizes the error. Thankfully there is more wheel to wheel racing since the advent of DRS, so this skill has much greater emphasis which is good to see!

[garcon]

The outright danger has been replaced by the physical demands on the driver's body and the need for ultra lightning responses. Driving an F1 car is just as difficult as it ever was, just in different ways.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by MarkG

Not really, they're decent drivers, but Webber almost won a championship in that time and as much as I like Webber, I don't put him in the Alonso class.
Drivers have a part to play, and top drivers are in the mix always, but the part of a driver isn't so impacting as it was in earlier years. Those days when speed came with balls, cars weren't as reliable, drivers crunched gears, missed gear-changes, over-revved engines etc etc. Then, drivers played a bigger part in my view, and I was more in awe of drivers in those days. I would probably more enjoy watching F1 drivers all in Porsche Supercup type cars.
I love F1 and am an avid fan, but I don't think F1 is as good as it once was. Ridiculous braking distances, aero is king.... anyway I digress.

Webber nearly won a championship against Vettel in 2010, the Vettel that started 2010, was a way different driver from the one who finished 2010 with 4 wins from five races. Vettel came of age in 2010, and just how decisive that was shows in how he has dominated Webber since!
Webber, I think is way better than he is rated, it is just his team mate that makes him look ordinary.

[JeremySmith]

Originally Posted by wnut

MarkG is right though, it is way easier than it used to be, and the penalties are not nearly as severe.
The bit where they fall off the circuit at high speed, and just keep the old foot planted and drive back on a few hundred metres later. There should be some sort of penalty for these mistakes, the old gravel traps used to at least penalise this behaviour!
Perhaps, if you get all 4 wheels over the track borders; white line; you get to serve a drive through. Don't know quite what the answer is, but it seems wrong that a winner can make several massive mistakes during the course of the race. Still I suppose the bumping into your competition still generally eliminates you from the race and penalizes the error. Thankfully there is more wheel to wheel racing since the advent of DRS, so this skill has much greater emphasis which is good to see!

It's a conundrum I will admit, but I dont want injured drivers...The old gravel traps removed drivers from the race even when they could have continued.. I am not sure what or if there is an answer that will please all of us..I do not think there is one is there?

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Knowlesy

I said his 2012 was more or less those things. He isn't a flawless driver, nobody is, but to deny his 2012 campaign was anything less than well delivered is a bit simple really.

Is that last paragraph some kind of wind up attempt?

Well clearly Ron doesn't agree

http://www.pitpass.com/48190-Dennis-...aren-departure

[Born Racer]

Originally Posted by JeremySmith

I am not sure what or if there is an answer that will please all of us..I do not think there is one is there?

There definitely isn't.

[MarkG]

Back to the OP, if you were to put Lewis in Newey's E-Type ( not to race, because I feel that car is like F1 against GP2 relative to it's competition ) and let him do laps of Goodwood in it, I suspect he'd set fastest time against other current F1 drivers, even faster that Fernando, who I rate the best GP driver. Grosjean may surprise though, and be quicker.
I suppose I'm saying Lewis is the fastest F1 driver, but not the best overall. Second only to Alonso in my view.

[peckstar]

Originally Posted by MarkG

Back to the OP, if you were to put Lewis in Newey's E-Type ( not to race, because I feel that car is like F1 against GP2 relative to it's competition ) and let him do laps of Goodwood in it, I suspect he'd set fastest time against other current F1 drivers, even faster that Fernando, who I rate the best GP driver. Grosjean may surprise though, and be quicker.
I suppose I'm saying Lewis is the fastest F1 driver, but not the best overall. Second only to Alonso in my view.

I think he would be 5th fastest

[MarkG]

fair enough.

[Aysedasi]

I think it would be completely impossible to predict.

[JohnSSC]

Originally Posted by garcon

The outright danger has been replaced by the physical demands on the driver's body and the need for ultra lightning responses. Driving an F1 car is just as difficult as it ever was, just in different ways.

Excellent point, garcon. Were the drivers of the pre-war era better because racing was even more dangerous than it was in the 1950's? It seems to me an odd sort of criterion each time someone puts that forward. Many things in sport are safer now. Downhill skiing for example as many skiers were severely injured by slalom poles that were not spring loaded or the development of the safety release on ski boots.

I think that motor racing is now what it always was: A challenge to take a Lump of Machinery around a Racing Course in the shortest possible time with the fewest possible competitors finishing in front of you. If that is your passion and all of your focus is on doing exactly that, then the "dangers" become (in a relative sense) secondary factors. The amount of danger does not make it a nobler enterprise if we distill racing down to its primary elements.