Who is the Greatest F1 driver of all time?

[S griffin]

Good comparison between Michael's 95 season and Max this season, although the main difference is Max had the best car, whereas Schumacher did it despite the Williams being faster than his Benetton

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by S griffin

Good comparison between Michael's 95 season and Max this season, although the main difference is Max had the best car, whereas Schumacher did it despite the Williams being faster than his Benetton

In '95, the Williams drivers took a total of 12 poles, 7 from Hill and 5 from Coulthard. Schumacher took 4. However when it came to actual racing, Schumacher had 8 fastest laps to Hill's 4 and Coulthard's 2.

[coppice]

Originally Posted by Born Racer

Norris has chimed in with a comment about Verstappen being one of the most talented ever: https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/a...5fXc8q4gj.html

Time will tell if he can reign in some of the excesses and refine some aspects of his racecraft to become one of the greatest, but I think Lando has a point. He stacks up very well on pure ability. At least this year, he is looking much more like earning the championship compared to in 2021.

Verstappen's 2022 reminds me of Schumacher's 1995. Following a controversial first championship win, he truly cements his right to a title the following year with a more crushing and also more deserving display.

I admire Norris' driving , and respect his view of Verstappen . But he'd be a very , very unusual 22 year old , driver or not, for me to respect his opinion on earlier eras . We all suffer from 'chronological superiority' , patronising the past as if nothing or nobody could ever have been as good then as their modern equivalents.

We might see signs of this in the comments - 'drivers in the past didn't cope with 5 g loadings ' for example . Quite true , but why do we think they couldn't have coped with the challenge had it faced them ? We seem to assume (rightly , I think ) that Hamilton and Verstappen could have coped with Grands Prix that were over twice as long , with no power steering , no trick diffs and the need to heel and toe a recalcitrant manual gearbox . Could Ascari have coped with the scores of controls and radio dialogue ? Could Norris cope psychologically with losing the odd team mate to death or horrendous injury?

Or could Innes Ireland deal with the PR gigs now required - I think I know the answer to that one..

[Skam85]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

In '95, the Williams drivers took a total of 12 poles, 7 from Hill and 5 from Coulthard. Schumacher took 4. However when it came to actual racing, Schumacher had 8 fastest laps to Hill's 4 and Coulthard's 2.

Sounds similar to Ferrari's Saturdays vs Red Bull's Sundays then

[bathurst77]

Many say as a driver Lewis is the GOAT
All i know that is in choosing what to wear he is the WOAT

[S griffin]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

In '95, the Williams drivers took a total of 12 poles, 7 from Hill and 5 from Coulthard. Schumacher took 4. However when it came to actual racing, Schumacher had 8 fastest laps to Hill's 4 and Coulthard's 2.

That's because Michael knew when to bang in the quick laps during the refuelling era. Williams were also not as good as Benetton during pitstops, but that's not the full story of why Michael was ahead

[PhilipR]

Originally Posted by coppice

I admire Norris' driving , and respect his view of Verstappen . But he'd be a very , very unusual 22 year old , driver or not, for me to respect his opinion on earlier eras . We all suffer from 'chronological superiority' , patronising the past as if nothing or nobody could ever have been as good then as their modern equivalents.

We might see signs of this in the comments - 'drivers in the past didn't cope with 5 g loadings ' for example . Quite true , but why do we think they couldn't have coped with the challenge had it faced them ? We seem to assume (rightly , I think ) that Hamilton and Verstappen could have coped with Grands Prix that were over twice as long , with no power steering , no trick diffs and the need to heel and toe a recalcitrant manual gearbox . Could Ascari have coped with the scores of controls and radio dialogue ? Could Norris cope psychologically with losing the odd team mate to death or horrendous injury?

Or could Innes Ireland deal with the PR gigs now required - I think I know the answer to that one..

Is not about drivers from a different era could not cope with today's racing environment and that today's drivers could not cope with the demands of the past. I am sure the greatest would have been great in any era had they been a contemporary of that era.

The comments about coping with 5g forces and other elements specific to this era is to point that modern drivers also have to deal with difficulties as some fans seem to paint their efforts negatively in comparison with the efforts of drivers past

The world has changed a lot over last 70 years including our values and technology. So comparing past and present is a bit futile I think as everything is so much different

[Born Racer]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

In '95, the Williams drivers took a total of 12 poles, 7 from Hill and 5 from Coulthard. Schumacher took 4. However when it came to actual racing, Schumacher had 8 fastest laps to Hill's 4 and Coulthard's 2.

It's a tricky one to judge. I'm not certain the Williams was a lot faster. Having said that, Hill and Coulthard were more evenly-matched drivers than Schumacher and Herbert, but Schumacher was clearly the fastest of the lot of them. Herbert scored but 4 podiums that season (two wins, a second and a third).

I like the parallel drawn with this year's Ferrari, arguably quicker than the Red Bull. And Verstappen is Schumacher to Pérez's Herbert.

[Kempi]

Who really thinks this year‘s Ferrari is truly quicker than the Red Bull? Apart from the first 4-5 races, the Red Bull was clearly the faster car over the weekend.

[Anyopenroad]

Originally Posted by bathurst77

Many say as a driver Lewis is the GOAT
All i know that is in choosing what to wear he is the WOAT

That was a lot funnier in your head than it is on the page ,

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by S griffin

Good comparison between Michael's 95 season and Max this season, although the main difference is Max had the best car, whereas Schumacher did it despite the Williams being faster than his Benetton

The Williams was faster but broke more. Coulthard alone was cost wins in Argentina, Monza and Spa from car failures. Damon lost some too.

Overall the Benetton was a better car. Just not a faster one.

[S griffin]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

The Williams was faster but broke more. Coulthard alone was cost wins in Argentina, Monza and Spa from car failures. Damon lost some too.

Overall the Benetton was a better car. Just not a faster one.

Damon though threw away quite a few races through errors

[chunterer]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

The Williams was faster but broke more. Coulthard alone was cost wins in Argentina, Monza and Spa from car failures. Damon lost some too.

Overall the Benetton was a better car. Just not a faster one.

I look at it as if Senna was in the FW17 would there have been much to discuss?

Damon was circa 1sec a lap off Ayrton's pace in the 16 in the early part of '94. The gap may have narrowed as the year went on. However the 17 was clearly a better car than the B195.

[S griffin]

Yes I agree Senna, provided he still had it in him, would have probably won the title. He wouldn't have made the mistakes Damon and David did. Of course he might have been let down at times by Williams strategy, but would have made up for it other times

[john ruston]

Some of posts are comical.
Stewart in front of Clark . Not serious
How do you sort Schumacher, Senna, Hamilton and The boy Max
You can do it in decades and overall it’s just opinion and as most keyboard warriors have only played with F1 in last four years and obviously think all history is bunk.
The present situation mirrors that between Brabham/ Moss, Prost/Senna, Vettle/Hamilton,Mansell/Piquet, Prost/Senna etc.
History is the judge but only if people look at history as a whole
Number of GP’s, Laps covered, Mechanical problems.
It started in 1950 but there were very handy drivers in 30’s

[S griffin]

I don't see what's wrong with putting Stewart in front of Clark. Both were the top drivers of their era and would make a place in my top 5 of all time. I feel Stewart was even more complete than Clark to be fair

[john ruston]

Originally Posted by S griffin

I don't see what's wrong with putting Stewart in front of Clark. Both were the top drivers of their era and would make a place in my top 5 of all time. I feel Stewart was even more complete than Clark to be fair

Interesting! Stewart puts Clark in front of Stewart so think he knows something.!
Clark could drive anything and dominated in all types of cars

[BTCC frog]

Originally Posted by S griffin

I don't see what's wrong with putting Stewart in front of Clark. Both were the top drivers of their era and would make a place in my top 5 of all time. I feel Stewart was even more complete than Clark to be fair

Why do you say Stewart was more complete than Clark? I would say Clark was as fast as Senna and as smooth as Prost. What do you think he was missing?

A bit like how Senna’s death denied Formula 1 a few years of Senna vs Schumacher in the championship battles, Clark’s death prevented a potential six years of Clark vs Stewart in the championship.

As a result, neither ever really fought another true ‘GOAT’ contender in Formula 1, and neither did Schumacher. Senna and Prost obviously raced each other, while Prost competed also against Lauda, although in his comeback. Hamilton has raced Alonso and Verstappen, while Fangio competed with Ascari and Moss. The 1950s may have had generally weaker drivers, but Fangio’s main rivals were probably stronger than all the other top drivers bar Senna and Prost.

[S griffin]

Originally Posted by john ruston

Interesting! Stewart puts Clark in front of Stewart so think he knows something.!
Clark could drive anything and dominated in all types of cars

Stewart maybe is just being modest. You're right though that Clark was a great all rounder. Stewart was more calculating though. So to be fair it's very hard to separate them. As I said they would both make my top 5

[chunterer]

Originally Posted by BTCC frog

Why do you say Stewart was more complete than Clark? I would say Clark was as fast as Senna and as smooth as Prost. What do you think he was missing?

A bit like how Senna’s death denied Formula 1 a few years of Senna vs Schumacher in the championship battles, Clark’s death prevented a potential six years of Clark vs Stewart in the championship.

As a result, neither ever really fought another true ‘GOAT’ contender in Formula 1, and neither did Schumacher. Senna and Prost obviously raced each other, while Prost competed also against Lauda, although in his comeback. Hamilton has raced Alonso and Verstappen, while Fangio competed with Ascari and Moss. The 1950s may have had generally weaker drivers, but Fangio’s main rivals were probably stronger than all the other top drivers bar Senna and Prost.

Stewart faced Rindt, Fittipaldi.
Both were major rivals of his.

Schumacher faced Alonso before Hamilton did..

[S griffin]

After Clark died, Rindt was the only one who could really take on Stewart. Fittipaldi could too, but good as Emmo was, the Lotus was probably the best car between 72-73.

[coppice]

So could Jackie Ickx ... if not as often as I'd have liked , thanks to the Maranello comic opera .

[BTCC frog]

Jochen Rindt, Emerson Fittipaldi and Jacky Ickx were all, indeed, outstanding drivers (Rindt outqualified reigning champion Graham Hill at every race in 1969). But I don't think they were as strong as Alberto Ascari and Stirling Moss, for example, Fangio's main opponents. Similarly, Clark's strongest opponents, Graham Hill, John Surtees, Dan Gurney and Jack Brabham, weren't as strong as those from some other eras. Schumacher only faced Alonso really in 2006, and I don't think this was peak Schumacher.

In terms of who had the strongest rivals of the main contenders at their peaks, I would suggest it would rank:
1. Prost (Senna, Lauda, Piquet, Mansell)
2. Senna (Prost, Mansell, Piquet)
3. Fangio (Ascari, Moss, Farina)
4. Hamilton (Verstappen, Alonso, Vettel)
5. Stewart (Rindt, Fittipaldi, Ickx)
6. Clark (Hill, Surtees, Gurney)
7. Schumacher (Hakkinen, Hill, Villeneuve, possibly Alonso)


And it is a shame that Clark and Stewart couldn't have raced each other once Stewart had reached his peak. They could have had an amazing title battle in 1969. Similarly, Senna and Schumacher were never able to fight each other for the championship between 1994 and 1997 as they could have done.

It makes Prost's four titles look particularly impressive, but obviously this doesn't suggest this should be the ranking of the drivers because Schumacher and Clark were the most obviously better than any other driver of their eras.

[S griffin]

Originally Posted by coppice

So could Jackie Ickx ... if not as often as I'd have liked , thanks to the Maranello comic opera .

True, although Jacky by his own admission, wasn't quite as dedicated as JYS. He preferred to do all his work on the track.

[bjohnsonsmith]

One interesting fact about Jim Clark, compared to the other drivers who could arguably be the GOAT, e.g. Hamilton, Prost, Schumacher and Senna, is he never won Monaco. His best result was 4th in 1964. However, he took pole four times, in '62, '63, 64 and '66.

Monaco is considered the jewel in F1's crown and is the one race I think every driver wants to win and looking at those who have won, a good many are considered Formula 1 greats and have won it multiple times. For example Jackie Stewart won it thrice, 1966, '71 and '73. Two times WDC Graham Hill won Monaco 5 times, a record that was held until 1993, when Senna won it for a 6th time.