Who is the Greatest F1 driver of all time?

[S griffin]

Johnny needed to be rested midway through his first season, that's how badly broken his legs were. He could have been champion, but for a certain Mr Foitek

[2 litre Touring Car Star]

He could've won a WC anyway. I've read differing stories as to why he was replaced halfway through 89.

Originally Posted by Skam85

All good points but you didn't factor in that Hill also almost got beaten by a rookie in 1996. A rookie that was later proven to be no more than decent over the course of his career.

I'd encourage you not to get caught up with the "rookie" classification. JV was a first year driver in F1 in 96 but wasn't a proper rookie.

I think your opinion of JV and his career is inaccurate. I can list why, but only if you'd like me to.

[john ruston]

Where are Brise, Brooks, Collins,Gurney, Hawthorne on the list plus half a dozen others?
All at least as highly qualified as50% of those named.

[Skam85]

Originally Posted by 2 litre Touring Car Star

I'd encourage you not to get caught up with the "rookie" classification. JV was a first year driver in F1 in 96 but wasn't a proper rookie.

I think your opinion of JV and his career is inaccurate. I can list why, but only if you'd like me to.

JV was a Formula One rookie by every definition of the word.
Hill, not a rookie by any definition of the word, struggled to beat him.
Those are the cold, hard facts.

JV was pretty good, not great, his best seasons were 1996 and 2000, probably 2001 as well but he never kicked on to become a true great of the sport. His mistake was choosing BAR and then doubling down and staying with them when his stocks were at their highest.

[chunterer]

Originally Posted by 2 litre Touring Car Star

The violin is of course always out for Johnny. But it's not the reason he never fulfilled on his supposed potential. He still could've won a WC despite his legs (He otherwise wouldn't have got the drive with Benetton in the first place).

Mick Doohan won 5 WC after his legs were severely damaged. The biggest difference being Mick had the command of the team, in a similar way Schumacher and Hamilton have).



It's never happened though.

Herbert was in high demand pre Brands 88 and the F1 paddock was raving about him.

The fact that he got to even race an F1 car after that was a miracle in itself, let alone finish 4th on his debut!

Johnny never used his limited foot/ankle movement as excuses for not being in contention at Benetton in '95 but that was was probably as much of a reason for inconsistent form as getting rough treatment from Flavio. Benetton/Enstone centered everything around a no.1 driver in the Flav years. I don't think many of the no.2s accepted or realised what that really meant?

Many other drivers would not have continued their careers if they had suffered such appalling injuries as Herbert did in '88, let alone in F1.

He must have had some serious natural talent and determination to still get regular deals for 10 years.

Damon Hill has gone on record as saying Johnny was better than him in their earlier careers and he also said Martin Donnelly was probably his hardest teammate to beat!

Make of that what you will.

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by chunterer

Damon Hill has gone on record as saying Johnny was better than him in their earlier careers and he also said Martin Donnelly was probably his hardest teammate to beat!

Make of that what you will.

Yes, I agree. I think that both Herbert and Donnelly had great natural talent and if it hadn't been for their appalling accidents, might well have achieved a great deal. More natural talent than Hill, yes, I'd certainly say so, having watched all three many times in their formative years.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by 2 litre Touring Car Star

It's never happened though.

Sakhir 2020?

[Aysedasi]

Ah, but the argument will be that Valteri finished ahead of George... tip of the iceberg stuff....

[chunterer]

Originally Posted by Aysedasi

Yes, I agree. I think that both Herbert and Donnelly had great natural talent and if it hadn't been for their appalling accidents, might well have achieved a great deal. More natural talent than Hill, yes, I'd certainly say so, having watched all three many times in their formative years.

And I really don't want to be doing Damon a disservice by putting those 2 ahead of him. Damon was a very very quick driver but perhaps not as naturally quick and instinctive as them.

However Suzuka '94 was arguably as strong a drive as Schu's in Catalunya earlier that year. Top drawer stuff.

Without wishing to keep banging the Herbert drum, I am certain that a driver who won 3 GP's with hindered ankle or leg strength and was still better than 2/3 of the field at the time would have won a helluva lot more without said limitations.

[S griffin]

The ironic thing is that Herbert’s 3 wins came due to bad luck happening to others, rather than himself for a change

[2 litre Touring Car Star]

Originally Posted by Aysedasi

Ah, but the argument will be that Valteri finished ahead of George... tip of the iceberg stuff....

Everything you see in a race is provisional til it ends.

I didn't know the reason for the substantial lack of pace relative to Hamilton? I don't know why he couldn't supposedly get heat into his tyres. Has anyone asked? (Surely they always objective Ted Kravitz has???).

Bottas got taken out of the race as the leading MB. That's amazingly a fact.

[2 litre Touring Car Star]

Originally Posted by Skam85

JV was a Formula One rookie by every definition of the word.
Hill, not a rookie by any definition of the word, struggled to beat him.
Those are the cold, hard facts.

JV was pretty good, not great, his best seasons were 1996 and 2000, probably 2001 as well but he never kicked on to become a true great of the sport. His mistake was choosing BAR and then doubling down and staying with them when his stocks were at their highest.

There's a difference between a driver's career and their qualities as a racing driver.

While Indycars may not have been as fast or nuanced as F1 cars, they still are an immensely powerful car. Both series were 15+ 300km race in about 90mins. It's not like he was fresh out of Japanese F3, Indycars then were more like Formula 1.25.

1997 & 98 were great seasons from him as well. 98 gets overlooked, but he was better relative to the car he was driving than 97 imo. I'm not writing an essay about it now

It was a spirited effort from Villeneuve to take the championship to the last race in 96, but I think it's a bit much to use it against Hill.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by 2 litre Touring Car Star

Everything you see in a race is provisional til it ends.

I didn't know the reason for the substantial lack of pace relative to Hamilton? I don't know why he couldn't supposedly get heat into his tyres. Has anyone asked? (Surely they always objective Ted Kravitz has???).

Bottas got taken out of the race as the leading MB. That's amazingly a fact.

You don't think this post is contradictory?

[2 litre Touring Car Star]

Nup. Bottas was the lead MB when he got taken out.

[GTRMagic]

Back on topic... The fella in the yellow crash hat...

A single minded focus.. simply the very best...
27 years gone

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by GTRMagic

Back on topic... The fella in the yellow crash hat...

A single minded focus.. simply the very best...
27 years gone

Yep. Gets my vote every time.

[coppice]

Good to see that Mark Blundell is getting some long overdue support...

[Adam43]

I see what you done did there.

[chunterer]

Originally Posted by Adam43

I see what you done did there.

That's mega

[2 litre Touring Car Star]

What's the difference between Senna and Hamilton?

Why would one pick one over the other?

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by 2 litre Touring Car Star

What's the difference between Senna and Hamilton?

Why would one pick one over the other?

They are different people and because someone thinks one is better than the other?

[Adam43]

That has been covered quite extensively earlier in thread, but I think I can summarize too main reasons.

For some Senna will get the nod because of the passion.
For others the sheer achievement of Hamilton will win out.

That doesn’t mean they don’t have some of the attributes I’ve quickly assigned to the other. Hamilton is passionate about what he does and Senna collected some of those statistics too. They also both have lots of other positive attributes; super fast, quick in the wet, ...

There are other reasons too. And reasons why one doesn’t do it for you. Maybe some are a massive Prost fan, or you don’t like tattoos.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by 2 litre Touring Car Star

What's the difference between Senna and Hamilton?

Why would one pick one over the other?

Because they prefer Hamilton's purple helmet?

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by 2 litre Touring Car Star

What's the difference between Senna and Hamilton?

Why would one pick one over the other?

Because people can, and people do.....

[peterelise]

Originally Posted by 2 litre Touring Car Star

What's the difference between Senna and Hamilton?

Why would one pick one over the other?

Speaking for myself, there are two main things that have me concluding Hamilton is better. Firstly, because Hamilton has done it without ever needing to resort to questionable/dangerous/unsporting driving tactics. I didn’t follow F1 as closely in Senna’s era as I do now so my views are formed by things I have read and watched (like the Senna movie) but which I think are widely accepted. Secondly, I think it is also true that Hamilton has never objected to any particular team mate whereas Senna is on record as having felt the need to do that.

I say all of that as someone who would have said Senna was the best until I have watched Hamilton’s career unfold. And I have arrived at this view despite initially feeling some antipathy towards a young Hamilton who thought the world was against him notwithstanding the fact he went straight into a top team. While I still feel like there is something about Hamilton that suggests he isn’t being authentic I have also grown to admire him for the way he has conducted himself around supporting and promoting diversity.

And to explain my comment about feeling a lack of authenticity, it is probably because I find it hard to believe that in his heart he doesn’t think he is the reason that Mercedes keep winning - that his comments about his team are said because he knows it is the right thing to say rather than because he truly believes it. I acknowledge that probably says more about me and my cynicism than about Hamilton.