Who is the Greatest F1 driver of all time?

[coppice]

Very true , but we then need to think about the deliciously Gallic irony that is Messrs Beltoise and Panis. The latter won partly through attrition (but no he's no less a
a worthy victor ) but Beltoise just annihilated everybody, and in a BRM that was good but far being from the best car

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by coppice

Very true , but we then need to think about the deliciously Gallic irony that is Messrs Beltoise and Panis. The latter won partly through attrition (but no he's no less a
a worthy victor ) but Beltoise just annihilated everybody, and in a BRM that was good but far being from the best car

I think Patrick Depailler should be included, along with Beltoise and Panis.

[BTCC frog]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

I think Patrick Depailler should be included, along with Beltoise and Panis.

I disagree. Patrick Depailler took a few years to get going but was almost on Jody Scheckter’s level in 1976, then matches an admittedly not-at-his-best Ronnie Peterson in 1977, outperformed rookie Didier Pironi in 1978 and was very close to Laffite at Ligier, a team that Laffite had made his own over the previous years. Personally, I would consider Depailler a much stronger driver than Beltoise or Panis. Jarno Trulli, Sergio Perez or Maurice Trintignant would be other Monaco GP winners of perhaps a similar level to Beltoise or Panis in my opinion.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by BTCC frog

I disagree. Patrick Depailler took a few years to get going but was almost on Jody Scheckter’s level in 1976, then matches an admittedly not-at-his-best Ronnie Peterson in 1977, outperformed rookie Didier Pironi in 1978 and was very close to Laffite at Ligier, a team that Laffite had made his own over the previous years. Personally, I would consider Depailler a much stronger driver than Beltoise or Panis. Jarno Trulli, Sergio Perez or Maurice Trintignant would be other Monaco GP winners of perhaps a similar level to Beltoise or Panis in my opinion.

I mentioned Patrick Depailler regarding his win at Monaco, which he rather lucked into, not his overall ability.

[coppice]

A win is a win , regardless of circumstances. Otherwise , it is down the rabbit hole of 'best car' , ''cheating' , team orders ' , 'lucky tyre choice' and so on. I will confess I had completely forgotten that Depailler won Monaco, but I would rate him higher than Panis or Beltoise , fine drivers though they both were .

The theory about Beltoise is that Monaco saw him really able to show his talents because it was wet and he didn't need the arm strength that he would have required in a dry race- he had badly injured his arm in an accident years before. Who knows? All I do know is that in any contest to win the prize for the most Gallic looking racing driver he'd have won every time.

[S griffin]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

I mentioned Patrick Depailler regarding his win at Monaco, which he rather lucked into, not his overall ability.

Considering Depailler always seemed to have something go wrong when he looked like he could win prior to that, I don't think anyone could say he didn't deserve that win, no matter how lucky he was.

Anyway I would strongly disagree he lucked into that one. He made a good start to be second on the first lap, then benefitted from Watson going off at one point. And yes Lauda getting a puncture probably helped him, but he was still in front of the Rat all race.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by S griffin

Considering Depailler always seemed to have something go wrong when he looked like he could win prior to that, I don't think anyone could say he didn't deserve that win, no matter how lucky he was.

Anyway I would strongly disagree he lucked into that one. He made a good start to be second on the first lap, then benefitted from Watson going off at one point. And yes Lauda getting a puncture probably helped him, but he was still in front of the Rat all race.

I never said he didn't deserve the win. However, with Watson going off and then Lauda having a puncture, I would say he lucked in.

[coppice]

I'd have paid a lot of money to have seen you saying that in Depailler's presence . He beat everyone else - that is all that counts .

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by coppice

I'd have paid a lot of money to have seen you saying that in Depailler's presence . He beat everyone else - that is all that counts .

That's ok then and Reutemann's collision with Hunt, Watson's fading brakes and Lauda's puncture had nothing to do with it.

[Teretonga]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

That's ok then and Reutemann's collision with Hunt, Watson's fading brakes and Lauda's puncture had nothing to do with it.

Unfortunately BJ, reliability played many a part in results over the years both in F1 and in other disciplines of open wheel racing.
In many cases we don't think of them or consider them relevant.
To finish first you must first finish.
PJ knew that at Indianapolis in 1967 and AJ cruised to the win.
But no one considers AJ's win as discounted when venerating his greatness with four wins.

Clark and Stewart both ran at Indy that year, Clark in the Lotus 38 again and Stewart for Mecom but Stewart got bumped and had to go to the backup car.

Hill had won in 1966 but no one considers he didn't deserve his status as a triple crown winner even though at Indy Stewart retired near the end having a full 1 lap lead and there were only 7 cars running at the end. Some say Hill never actually passed anyone all through the race after starting 15th....

Clark led Stewart and Hill at Monza in 1965 but Clark retired, and Stewart inherited the win in his first year of F1.
I had the privilege of watching Clark and Stewart go head-to-head in 1966 and 1967 in the Tasman series and Jimmy was the more relaxed and dominant driver in that period being the most dominant driver in the series 1965-1968.

At Spa in 1964 Clark repeated earlier wins after Gurney ran out of fuel ahead of him, then Graham Hill lost a fuel pump while leading with two laps to go and Clark nursed home an ailing Lotus just ahead of McLaren.
But he won the race four years in a row....
Surtees won the 64 title in Mexico after Bandini backed out to allow John enough points to win but he is still venerated as the only man to win a World title on two and four wheels.

Later titles had similar surroundings and F1 today is very much a title determined by mechanical advantage but the battles between Hamilton and Verstappen over the last half dozen races in 2021 were monumental regardless of the outcome and we are able to revisit them at will thanks to video recording.
But we cannot and should not take anything away from any driver who won a GP even as a result of someone else's misfortune.


The old adage still stands...
To finish first, first you must finish....

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Teretonga

Unfortunately BJ, reliability played many a part in results over the years both in F1 and in other disciplines of open wheel racing.
In many cases we don't think of them or consider them relevant.
To finish first you must first finish.
PJ knew that at Indianapolis in 1967 and AJ cruised to the win.
But no one considers AJ's win as discounted when venerating his greatness with four wins.

Clark and Stewart both ran at Indy that year, Clark in the Lotus 38 again and Stewart for Mecom but Stewart got bumped and had to go to the backup car.

Hill had won in 1966 but no one considers he didn't deserve his status as a triple crown winner even though at Indy Stewart retired near the end having a full 1 lap lead and there were only 7 cars running at the end. Some say Hill never actually passed anyone all through the race after starting 15th....

Clark led Stewart and Hill at Monza in 1965 but Clark retired, and Stewart inherited the win in his first year of F1.
I had the privilege of watching Clark and Stewart go head-to-head in 1966 and 1967 in the Tasman series and Jimmy was the more relaxed and dominant driver in that period being the most dominant driver in the series 1965-1968.

At Spa in 1964 Clark repeated earlier wins after Gurney ran out of fuel ahead of him, then Graham Hill lost a fuel pump while leading with two laps to go and Clark nursed home an ailing Lotus just ahead of McLaren.
But he won the race four years in a row....
Surtees won the 64 title in Mexico after Bandini backed out to allow John enough points to win but he is still venerated as the only man to win a World title on two and four wheels.

Later titles had similar surroundings and F1 today is very much a title determined by mechanical advantage but the battles between Hamilton and Verstappen over the last half dozen races in 2021 were monumental regardless of the outcome and we are able to revisit them at will thanks to video recording.
But we cannot and should not take anything away from any driver who won a GP even as a result of someone else's misfortune.


The old adage still stands...
To finish first, first you must finish....

Indeed, reliability has played many a part in results over the years in motorsport, and that's not to take anything away from any driver who won a GP, even as a result of someone else's misfortune. One person's misfortune can be someone else's luck.
.

[Anyopenroad]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Indeed, reliability has played many a part in results over the years in motorsport, and that's not to take anything away from any driver who won a GP, even as a result of someone else's misfortune. One person's misfortune can be someone else's luck.

Perhaps woth adding as well that while there is an element of chance in mechanical failures, it's not entirely out of a driver's control. Some drivers (Clark was one) were/are famously easy on their cars. Driving style and temperament are not insignificant elements of mechanical "luck".