Who is the least talented F1 champion?

[Damonist]

No, dont agree on Schumi, because the B194 and B195 were really good cars, equally (B194) good compared with the Williams car and better (B195) than all the other cars. Remember that 94 was a turbulent year and one where the cars of Williams and Benetton were practically equal, and that Ross Brawn were involved with Benetton.

Dont know which title you have in mind for Senna, but then again, does it matter? Senna and Schumi are just sooo much better as drivers that they can equal out any defficiencies (is that the word?) in their cars. However, I seriously doubt that Senna was in a "bad" car in that year?

[KA]

Originally posted by colinbond
Damon Hill would be the least talented F1 champ of all. He has done nothing before or since F1 and only won by being in the best car.

His lack of results before F1 owed an awful lot to lack of money and bad luck though- funnily enough, at the weekend I happened across an old programme for the Brands Hatch F3000 round in 1990- the preview in that programme describes his performances as being one of the revelations of that season-that Brands race was about round 8 or 9 of the championship, by which time Hill had led 3 or 4 races and had a similar number of pole positions behind him that year, but didn't have a single point to show for it, largely due to the car letting him down.....

I'd never claim him to be one of the greatest drivers ever, but do think he's always been very much underrated

[R]

OK, I've no intentions of hijacking the topic, but just to respond to Damonist:

The title which I have in mind for Senna is the 91 WDC. The Williams of that year (IMO) was a better car, and the Williams team mates Mansell and Patrese both finished higher (2nd and 3rd) than Berger (4th) in the other McLaren in the final standings. And we know how unbeatable the Williams was in 92 - they were clearly on the up already in 91, and McLaren on the down.

TGF's 94 and 95 titles were IMO also won in inferior cars. I've learnt to trust John Watson's judgement , and he said that the better machinery was in the hands of Damon Hill. Besides, the Benetton, driven by Alesi and Berger (both very good drivers, but not in the same league as the greats) didn't manage to win a single race in 96. Admittedly, some of that was down to bad luck, but it was still a steep downhill from the 9 races won by TGF in 95. I don't think the team deteriorated that much in such a short time. The driver made the difference.

[Damonist]

Actually, funny you should mention it, because I read an interview (by Damon Hill! ) with Schumi and MS then said "The Benetton was so tricky on the limit, it had to be balanced very carefully. Alesi and Berger couldnt do that and that was why they crashed!" So yes, in one respect you have right, the Benetton was not t-h-a-t good. On the other hand, I read a book by Steve Matchett who used to be a Benetton Mechanic and his inside view from 94 gives the picture that the Benetton actually was equal to the Williams.

Lets put it this way: Schumi (and Senna -91, as you mentioned) were maybe not in THE best car in their respective years (91 and 94) but their cars were at least second best, and combined with the awsome talents of Senna and Schumi, I am not sure I would count that as "winning without being in the best car"...

Obviously it is really difficult to find such a situation, which probably means Damon, like the other F1 World Champions, was in the best car, like the other F1 World Champions. Proved my point yet?

[Heebeegeetee]

Damon Hill was a very fast, smart man. All the cars he drove were potential race winners, because he made them so, even the Arrows. But, apart from the odd great race, such a Suzuka '94 & Hungaroring '97, he couldn't race for toffee.

[Rutle]

On his day he was talented, a charger, an overtaker and looked like a true champion. But on his bad days he was the moaningest, whingeingest worst of the bunch ... and definitely would never had won the WDC without what amounted to one of the biggest gaps ever between best car and second best. You all forgot Nigel Mansell.

[DAVID PATERSON]

Ow, my foot's sore.

[KA]

Originally posted by Rutle
... and definitely would never had won the WDC without what amounted to one of the biggest gaps ever between best car and second best. You all forgot Nigel Mansell.

I'm not totally sure I agree with you there- don't forget how close he'd come to the championship in '86- The sheer dominance of the '92 Williams does devalue his championship to some extent, but at his best, Mansell in any car that was capable of winning would always be in with a chance......

[Neil C]

I was never impressed with Nelson Piquet, even after becoming WDC.

[DAVID PATERSON]

All 3 times????

[Damonist]

Piquet won three times??? :confused: :confused: I did not know that!

[KA]

Originally posted by Damonist
Piquet won three times??? :confused: :confused: I did not know that!

1981 & 83 with Brabham, 1987 with Williams

[cybersdorf]

Michael Schumacher. It's amazing he can get in and out of his car without hurting himself. He wins races because it's in his contract.

[Damonist]

Originally posted by cybersdorf
Michael Schumacher. It's amazing he can get in and out of his car without hurting himself.

I did not quite follow you on that one.... :confused:

[macca]

Most World Champions have been as fast as their competitors of the time, even if they weren't always as consistently fast, or as quick from the first lap or over one qualifying lap.

The ones who weren't would have to be:

Farina (1950) - not as quick as Fangio or Ascari
Brabham & Phil Hill (1959-1961) - outpaced by Moss

Piquet was fast but lazy, and all of his 3 WDC's owed something to other drivers' misfortune (Williams unreliability in 1981, Renault complacency in 1983, Mansell's crash at Suzuka 1987).

[BootsOntheSide]

The least impressive multiple champion has to be Piquet. Few would place him in the same bracket as Senna, Prost or Mansell. If Reutemann hadn't've had that dramatic loss of form in the final race in 1981 (the equivalent of Ronaldo in the football World Cup 1998 final), he wouldn't've won that despite a reliability advantage and having no frontline team-mate to challenge him, he was lucky in 1983, and if he had worked as a team player at Williams, Mansell would've wiped the floor with him.

[KA]

The problem with Piquet is exactly as Macca put it- fast but lazy. When he had undisputed no1 status and a competitive car, for example when he was with Brabham, he was fine, but really couldn't deal with the lack of either of those things- remember the failure to qualify at Spa '89 with Lotus? For a three-time world champion, that was frankly embarrassing.....

In terms of talent, there's no doubt about his ability. In terms of attitude- he's not even close to Prost or Senna....

[DAVID PATERSON]

I remember one team was sick of his half arsed eforts and decided to put him on an incentive scheme, where his salary was replaced by $x per point scored. I can't remember the team or the year, but i remeber the transformation in his performance was amazing.

[Jonny Apex]

It was Benetton, 1990-91.

Schumi did win the title in what was not the best car - 95. The Benetton was not the equal of the Williams of Hill or Coulthard to begin with. However, neither made the most of their advantage. Schumacher made damn sure that by mid-season the Benetton was sorted and then thrashed the lot of 'em.

Just a thought. Brazil, '94. Before Senna, in his first drive for Williams, spun out near the end, he was over a lap up on team-mate Hill.