Who is the Greatest F1 driver of all time?

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Aysedasi

We've all seen it before, surely?

I haven't seen it for a long time. It's good to revisit these things once in a while.

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

I haven't seen it for a long time. It's good to revisit these things once in a while.

I remember it well enough, as I do the year before......

[Peter Mallett]

When Senna ran down the pitlane entry before ramming Prost?

[canaglia]

Usually I don't like these GOAT charts because is pointless to me drop names of drivers which most of them got their success in very different ages and contexts each other, it's basically the same about best guitar player, best soccer player etc...
anyway I voted Senna because he was simply too great, his pure speed and aggressive driving style was like 10 years ahead to his rivals despite these guys were sacred monsters like Prost, Piquet and Mansell who gave him a lot of hard time across late '80 early '90.
Despite their records and unreachable numbers, I can't say Schumacher and Hamilton are the greatest to me, because if like Senna they had the luck to build up most of their legacy driving a clearly superior car, it's also true that both of them had almost 0 competition for more than few seasons.
I can however say that Schumacher was the most maniacally victory obsessed driver ever and Hamilton is the one with the best mental strength (IMHO) aside their one of a kind driving skills of course.

[chunterer]

I don't know, isn't the Senna-Berger pairing of a similar level to Hamilton- Bottas?

And arguably Senna-Hill would've ben similar.

Both drivers have faced the best of their time in the sane team, but also benefited from a having solid no.2 atb otheer times during their careers.

[canaglia]

Originally Posted by chunterer

I don't know, isn't the Senna-Berger pairing of a similar level to Hamilton- Bottas?

And arguably Senna-Hill would've ben similar.

Both drivers have faced the best of their time in the sane team, but also benefited from a having solid no.2 atb otheer times during their careers.

Different contexts, Senna had a "comfortable" championship win only in 1991, and that isn't even 100% true since Mansell beat him in a lot of races and the final big points difference was given more by the fact Mansell retired in 6 races (5 dfn + 1 dsq). In 1988 and 1990 Senna defeated Prost only by few points even if paradoxically Prost in 1988 scored more points for the overall seasons but Senna won because the of the best 11 results rule.
About Schumacher,
1995, 2001, 2002 and 2004 championships were a walk in the park and despite the controversial last race of 1994, that season schumacher won even being dsq for 4 races lol
speaking about Hamilton we can say the same about 2019 and 2020 and I would include also second half of 2018.

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

When Senna ran down the pitlane entry before ramming Prost?

Er no......

[Peter Mallett]

You may want to look at that again.

[Aysedasi]

I have. Our views differ, yes the pitlane entry was used but the collision occurred well after that when Prost turned into Senna earliesr than the normal turn-in point, knowing that Senna was alongside him. It's old and has been revisited many times. I myself watched it many many times when it happened. Whilst it does not have the outrageous blatancy of 1990, there is (and never really has been) any doubt that Prost simply decided Senna wasn't coming through on that occasion. Frankly, I don't really blame him for that, but there is no way that Senna 'rammed' Prost....

[2 litre Touring Car Star]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

This example is more tame - if you were comparing a 'chop' on a straight to football, I think this is more akin to a two-footed tackle or elbow to the face.
These are offences that warrant a straight red car, and expulsion from the event. In F1, there are also certain actions that would warrant a similar penalty.

The point was more about aggressive defensive actions occurring too late. On both occasions, the defender/lead car have been caught out, but still can impede the striker/trailing car.

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

When does defending become blocking? - I expect a driver to be right on the edge of that boundary, and in doing so will cross it on occasion.

Don't hate the player, hate the game.

In a situation on the main straight, I would put it to you that the trailing car is to be at close to optimal pace from exiting the last corner to halfway to t2.

That being the case, if the lead car severely disrupts the momentum of the trailing car, then that's it. In other forms of racing, there a rules in how the leader is able to position themselves, but I don't know an instance where car racing series learn from that.

I going to presume you remember these races, so I'll bring up examples.

In Malayasia one year, Hamilton got pinged for "swerving" therefore impeding Vitaly Petrov. Personally, I didn't have a problem with that as Hamilton was really trying to break the draft.

There was one year in Spain. Schumacher held off a distinctly faster Button without doing anything cynical. That's it.

Corralling a trailing car even further to "passing side" of the track, as long as the trailing car is still able to go flat, is fine.

Everything else gets a no no.

[2 litre Touring Car Star]

Originally Posted by BTCC frog

The way I see it:
Best qualifier means the driver most likely to get pole position in one race against every other driver from history in equal cars.
Fastest driver means the driver most likely to win this one race against every other driver from history in equal cars (maybe in more of a time trial situation than a race).
Best driver on pure driving ability is the driver who would be most likely to win the championship against every other driver from history in equal cars.

Unless that car is the Williams-Renault FW14 & 15C, for one 300km stint (None of the lame, lower standard, mandatory pitstops with optimal tyre grip), the answer is Alain Prost.

Unless the car is the FW14B/15C, he'd win the hypothetical championship as well. He's had the hardest list of team mates any driver has ever had, and finished 2nd on two occasions. Once where he scored more points than Senna, and the other with the misfortune that an incomplete full race was actually detrimental to his championship challenge.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by 2 litre Touring Car Star

Unless that car is the Williams-Renault FW14 & 15C, for one 300km stint (None of the lame, lower standard, mandatory pitstops with optimal tyre grip), the answer is Alain Prost.

It is east to make a definitive statement - harder to back that up with definitive facts.

Two reasons why you may choose a different driver over Prost to 'win' the race for you:
Is it wet?
Do you need them to overtake?

If the answer to either of those is yes, then Prost is (IMO) not your man.

Add into that the fact you have put additional criteria on the scenario, and does this not suggest Prost is not the complete driver?

It looks different if you rephrase your statement thus:

I'm picking Prost to win the race if the following conditions are met - Dry race, minimal overtaking required, not in a Williams from 91-93, not at Monaco, with no pit-stops, and only on a certain type of tyre.

[Anyopenroad]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

I'm picking Prost to win the race if the following conditions are met - Dry race, minimal overtaking required, not in a Williams from 91-93, not at Monaco, with no pit-stops, and only on a certain type of tyre.

It's not obvious to me why Prost would be the favorite even in these conditions. I'm a huge Prost fan and I'm glad this discussion has brought his brilliance back to the fore, but I can't see how he's any faster than Senna, Schumacher of Hamilton. I'd say it was his analytical approach and clever thinking (like the Gurney flap removal, or setting up he car for race not qualy) which sets him apart rather than pure pace.

[2 litre Touring Car Star]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

It is east to make a definitive statement - harder to back that up with definitive facts.

Two reasons why you may choose a different driver over Prost to 'win' the race for you:
Is it wet?
Do you need them to overtake?

If the answer to either of those is yes, then Prost is (IMO) not your man.

Add into that the fact you have put additional criteria on the scenario, and does this not suggest Prost is not the complete driver?

It looks different if you rephrase your statement thus:

I'm picking Prost to win the race if the following conditions are met - Dry race, minimal overtaking required, not in a Williams from 91-93, not at Monaco, with no pit-stops, and only on a certain type of tyre.

Just some points I'd like to address.

The Williams FW14B/15C is a unique car. It would've been easier for me earlier to say that Mansell was a FW14B specialist.

No mandatory pitstops is an actual proper race. So it's not even a distinction.

Wet weather running is a specialty and ad hoc.

How much evidence do you need to be satisfied that Prost can overtake? Because there's a fair bit of evidence on youtube, and some of Prost's best know races are one he didn't win but made his way back up the field (Belgium one year, Japan another).

Anyone can come up with whatever criteria they like. But wet weather driving and fraught overtaking moves (Which is what I think is meant with the term "passing"?) is just 90% of driving. The rest is all dry weather running. To best the best at that requires dull, monotonous, deceptively intense, efficient driving, and Prost is the best at that.

And that's before I get into all the superficial reason why it's most likely he's best.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

You may want to look at that again.

I would like to.

[Peter Mallett]

Your wish etc. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBForKcFWoA

[S griffin]

That move was never on, sad way for that title to end

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by S griffin

That move was never on, sad way for that title to end

Frankly that's nonsense. The video (which isn't the best angle to actually see what actually happens), clearly shows that Senna was well past the pitlane entry road when he pulled alongside Prost. Videos from outside the cockpit show definitively that Prost turned in before the normal turn in point. Not much before, but clearly before it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yg_hXycTKAs

He knew full well that Senna was there, indeed I don't think there is any doubt that he knew that Senna would make that move. He had told Ron Dennis before the race that if Senna tried a move like that he wouldn't concede. Whatever you think about the move (or at least the start of it), there was clearly a gap to be exploited and Prost decided it wasn't going to happen this time, so he turned slightly early in to make sure it didn't. As I said before, I don't exactly blame him for that, but it is all too easy to paint Senna black for it because of what happened the following year...

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

Your wish etc. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBForKcFWoA

Thanks.

[BTCC frog]

In my opinion, 1989 was a genuine attempt by Senna to make the overtake, and while Prost did turn in on Senna, he had the corner. A controversial one, but I'm calling it as a racing incident.

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by BTCC frog

In my opinion, 1989 was a genuine attempt by Senna to make the overtake, and while Prost did turn in on Senna, he had the corner. A controversial one, but I'm calling it as a racing incident.

I don't agree that he had the corner at the time he turned in and I don't see how you can conclude that if you watch the video that I posted. The only way that works is if he had no idea Senna was there - and I simply can't believe that....

Stills from the video bear this out. Prost clearly turned into Senna before the normal turn-in point.

This is really old stuff and has been debated to death on the internet. I know people are aware of my support for Senna, but on this occasion blaming Senna for that collision simply isn't on. It is as clear as the nose on your face what happened there. And as I've said twice already, I can understand why Prost did it.

[bjohnsonsmith]

At the time and watching it again and it has been a few years, I've always thought Senna blocked Prost.

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

At the time and watching it again and it has been a few years, I've always thought Senna blocked Prost.

I think that's part of the problem. Because Senna was accused of 'dirty tactics' more than once in his career (both before and during F1) and Prost is seen as being, well, 'squeaky clean', it's an easy conclusion to reach whereas it's quite the opposite actually.

Make sure you watch the side on video as well as Peter's in car with Senna video. Also the helicopter footage is even more of a clear giveaway about how early Prost turned in.

You're not blocking another driver when that driver turns into you. There is a lot of footage on the internet, especially the rarely seen view from Prost's car where the steering movements give the game away.

This (below) is quite pompous stuff, but worth a read for a variety of different views, many of which are coloured by who you happen to favour anyway. But the basic conclusion of the 'court' (or at least part 1 of it) I agree with. I don't agree that Prost was unsporting.

https://forums.autosport.com/topic/1...-suzuka/page-2

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Aysedasi

I think that's part of the problem. Because Senna was accused of 'dirty tactics' more than once in his career (both before and during F1) and Prost is seen as being, well, 'squeaky clean', it's an easy conclusion to reach whereas it's quite the opposite actually.

Make sure you watch the side on video as well as Peter's in car with Senna video. Also the helicopter footage is even more of a clear giveaway about how early Prost turned in.

You're not blocking another driver when that driver turns into you. There is a lot of footage on the internet, especially the rarely seen view from Prost's car where the steering movements give the game away.

This (below) is quite pompous stuff, but worth a read for a variety of different views, many of which are coloured by who you happen to favour anyway. But the basic conclusion of the 'court' (or at least part 1 of it) I agree with. I don't agree that Prost was unsporting.

https://forums.autosport.com/topic/1...-suzuka/page-2

Thanks for the link. I'd outgrown favourite drivers by 1989 and I never thought of Prost as being squeaky clean. I've not seen the helicopter footage or the view from Prost's car.

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Thanks for the link. I'd outgrown favourite drivers by 1989 and I never thought of Prost as being squeaky clean. I've not seen the helicopter footage or the view from Prost's car.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEB_V7QYr7M

Clear as day.

I can't find the Prost in-car for the moment....

I should add, I'm only posting these things as a response to the suggestions that Senna 'rammed' Prost or that the overtake was never on. Both of which I believe to be incorrect as evidenced from the video. I'm making no moral judgments, but, after 32 years, the record really should be clear by now.