Who's the greatest F1 driver EVER?

[Skam85]

Originally Posted by Louis B.

Michael Schumacher To me, he is the Lance Armstrong of his sport and I don't recall anyone else as commited to winning in his sport.

What... he takes drugs too???

[Retired]

Jim Clark. Obviously.

[pole2pole]

Its such a shame that we haven't seen another top driver race against Michael within the same team. With all respect to those who have been his team mates I really don't think the guy has ever been pushed from his team mates

[krt917]

Originally Posted by Andydickens

I personally believe that Senna was more talented than MS, but MS put in a lot more preparation and was more 'complete' than Senna.

I agree with this. Ayrton was hardly a slacker, but Schuey as moved the goalposts as far as drivers being integrated into teams goes.

I wouldn't say Michael has won against mediocre drivers, though of course the Senna-Prost-Mansell era was particularly strong. I think Schuey has offset that to some degree by twice being involved with teams that weren't doing much winning when he arrived and then going on to take a title (or two, or three, or....).

As regards his team-mates, he hasn't always had the strongest, though I think Rubens is probably better than most people think, a point that Nigelk Roebuck made a few weeks ago. That will, perhaps, stand as one of the main criticisms of him when considering greatness. That, and the use of dubious on-track tactics, which have been far too Senna-like for me.

Overall, it does come down to personal prefernce, but you can at least come up with a pool of candidates. We also have to be sure what we are talikng about; if it were greatest drivers ever, then Nuvolari and Rosemeyer would become candidates, but they didn't technically race in F1. Similarly, the greatest all-rounders list would see Moss, Andretti and Ickx featuring strongly, but they might not have such a strong case in a specifically F1 context.

In terms of passing the top F1 baton over time, the drivers are almost certainly:
Fangio-Moss-Clark-Stewart-Lauda-(strange gap with no obviously top driver, GV perhaps)-Prost-Senna-Schuey

[Louis B.]

Originally Posted by Skam85

What... he takes drugs too???

He might if there is any which improves pace. I still have these recollections of MS tilting his head on each and every straight in order to improve the intake of air by the engine airbox of the ill-designed Ferrari 1996; of MS taking the opportunity of the after race parc fermé to scrutinize the McLaren of Hakkinen, etc. I've withdrawn my vote for him as the "greatest" because of his "ethics" (shunting out DH and JV in order to win or try to win a WDC; not allowing his team-mate to fight him, etc.). He is nevertheless, IMO, the most talented, committed and perfectionist of the era I know.

[Jordi]

I wouldn't say Damon, Mika and Jacques were mediocre WDCs. No WDC is mediocre, you know.

So Schumacher is probably the greatest, but I am fascinated by Clark...

[Jordi]

BTW, normally overlooked in these threads are Prost, Stewart, Lauda, Ascari, Emerson Fittipaldi... all of whom could be candidates to being greatest ever.

Not to mention Mario Andretti. He may not be the greatest F1 driver, but maybe he is the greatest all-around driver to succeed in F1 too?

[joe rossi]

Ricardo Rosset...every new lap was an adventure!

[Chappelli]

I love the assumption that because MS has dominated, F1 has a lesser class of driver. To be fair, like most sports, todays drivers/cyclists/football players would wipe the floor with there historic counterparts. Why, because the preperation, understanding and commitment to squeezing E V E R Y T H I N G for that extra tenth/kph/metre has developed so much.

Yet, we still acknowlege (as we should) that they were great, because in the context of their environment, they were "greats". That MS has dominated and given people a reason to believe that F1 doesn't have the calibre of driver it used to is the very reason he is the greatest.

[Gerben24]

Originally Posted by Jordi

...
Not to mention Mario Andretti. He may not be the greatest F1 driver, but maybe he is the greatest all-around driver to succeed in F1 too?

Mario won the Daytona500, Indy500 and a F1 championship, but never the Le Mans 24 hour race and did he ever win in Monaco? I would say the greatest all-around driver would be Graham Hill, he won Le Mans, Monaco, Indy500 and became multiple F1 champ. A shame he didn't win Daytona500...

[gringottsdirect]

Originally Posted by markysjag

I would have to say me. Every time I see a race I Know I could do better. How hard could it be.

I feel the same - well almost.
In the dry feel fairly sure I could time my starts well, then it is just a matter of accelerating and braking in the right places, timing it right for turning the corners and avoiding other people's accidents.
Chasing Schumacher and Raikkonen through Eau Rouge with the car glued to the road by aerodynamics must be a blast.
However, in the wet or in changeable weather I am not so confident as I suspect the car may move around beneath me somewhat or go in to a skid at high speed - much trickier - that puts me off a bit.

Anyway to answer the question, Mansell is the greatest for me, even when he didn't have the best car he often drove rings around the others, the one season he did have the best car - 1992 - he did more than anybody could have asked with it to become WDC.
Senna, Schumacher, Prost all did so well because they had the best car so often - hence their superior records. Imagine for the last few years MS had a Ferrari / Bridgestone performance like this year - would he be 7 times WDC - no. Then again you can have the fastest car and still not be WDC - hello Kimi - maybe.
Oh well, nobody can ever answer this question really, keep posting your favourites guys !

[Joe Taylor]

Originally Posted by Jordi

Not to mention Mario Andretti. He may not be the greatest F1 driver, but maybe he is the greatest all-around driver to succeed in F1 too?

Michael was far better

[Knowlesy]

My favourites over my short F1 watching career (1989-today): Senna, Mansell, Hill, Villeneuve, Hakkinen, Herbert, Alesi, Berger, Montoya, Raikkonen, Wilson, Heidfeld, Alonso, Massa, Sato, Button. I liked Schumacher for a time too, between 1997 and 2000. Nowadays I'm indifferent to him, just I root for other guys now.

I'm sure there are more to add.

Greatest ever. Well, I find that hard.

Schumacher is statistically the greatest and has been superb. He is still incredible to watch and a master. BUT his ethics have been questionable on more than one occasion and you have to question certain things. He also has some spectacularly bad off days.

Senna. Was even better than Schumacher IMO, but occasional bad ethics again. The fastest man I ever saw race by quite some margin.

Prost. Clean as a whistle, deceptively fast, a multiple champ and the second most successful driver in F1 history. Almost flawless, but never liked his tendency to lose bottle during some wet races and park it, although this wasn't a commonplace thing.

Fangio. Never saw him race. But I find his career fascinating.

Clark. See above. I would assume from what I've read and know about him, that he is the fastest man F1 has seen.

There are so many more of course. Even those who never won titles: Moss?

It's all inconclusive from me, but it's too hard to decide.

[Sharky]

Originally Posted by Andydickens

In 1994, Schumacher in the Benetton was beating Senna in the Williams in every race until the tragedy at Imola.

For me the clearest statistic is that the first pole position By schu came in Monaco 94. He had been unable to beat Senna on a one lap qualifying. Not even when Schu had the works Ford engine while senna got stuck with the customer variant.

This is not to take away from Schumacher of course. He has been the best driver of his time. But, as many mentioned, we're just comming out of a "fantastic driver" drought. Not that schu's opponents were a bunch of mediocre drivers. But I would really have to think twice about putting them in the hall of fame. Hakkinen had a tendency to give up when he wasn't motivated, Hill almost lost a "free" championship against a rookie teammate and Villeneuve....I think his form since 1998 speaks for itself. On the other hand Senna had to battle against Prost, Piquet, Mansell....

Not to mention that Schu had a killer car. Because it wasn't only that ferrari had the best car and was doing the best job. The rest were doing an embarrasing job. During the Ferrari domination years Barichello was almost as fast as Schu (sometimes even faster), yet nobody was claiming that he was one of the best drivers (as he surely wasn't).

Despite his bad start in the 1994 season, I really doubt that Schu would have been able to beat Senna to the title. In fact, I don't think anyone could have challenged him for a couple of years more and history could have been quite different.

My take on the best drivers ever has to be, as you can imagine, Senna, Gilles Villeneuve and Tazio Nouvolari. Although I never saw the latter (obviously) I've read a lot about him and it's been absolutely inspiring.

[Louis B.]

Excellent posts by both Knowlesy and Sharky. However:

Knowlesy: Your comment about Prost being afraid or not as good in the wet is a little bit unfair. Yes, IIRC, he lost it once in the wet on the warming up lap and was begging the marshall to stop the race he was leading in Monaco (I think) but he won at least one race under full wet conditions;

Sharky: It is also a bit unfair to compare Senna with MS based upon their 1994 limited battle. MS kept improving a lot after that while, with all due respect to Senna, I think his peak was behind him when destiny took him away.

[Kicking-back]

Originally Posted by knowlesy

Prost. Clean as a whistle, deceptively fast, a multiple champ and the second most successful driver in F1 history. Almost flawless, but never liked his tendency to lose bottle during some wet races and park it, although this wasn't a commonplace thing.

Anyone who's followed Prost's career would know why he later disliked the wet.

And his decision to park it in dangerous conditions showed more "bottle" than many drivers could ever know.

[Louis B.]

Originally Posted by Kicking-back

Anyone who's followed Prost's career would know why he later disliked the wet.

So why did he later dislike the wet (I indeed missed parts of his career) if you are not referring to the Monaco episode? I know for a fact that he is not afraid a bit racing on ice.

[Knowlesy]

I know why he was afraid of the wet. The Pironi incident, German GP practice, 1982.

But he carried on driving in the wet mostly, it was just the odd occasion he parked it.

I nearly added that it took bottle to park it, but to be quite honest I think he should just have got on with it. That's just my opinion and I realise I'll be shot down in flames, but.....

[Adam43]

His main objection was always the poor visibility rather than the track conditions as such.

[Knowlesy]

Indeed and that was the cause of the accident he was involved in. He was perfectly capable of driving quickly in the wet.

[Dutton]

....which is virtually non-existent when rain gets bad.....

[ASCII Man]

Ah yes, I remember Prost asking other drivers to pull out of the Australian GP before the race, some concurred with him but raced anyway, while Senna did too but managed to park his McLaren in between Nakajima's buttcheeks!

That was fun!

[Rennen]

Clark...Incomparable...A natural, a genius, a sportsman in the traditional sense, he didn't need to drive dirty to win!

[luke]

Ayrton Senna or Jim Clark.

Both were tragically killed and were deeply are still are missed in the sport.

[Sharky]

Originally Posted by Louis B.

Sharky: It is also a bit unfair to compare Senna with MS based upon their 1994 limited battle. MS kept improving a lot after that while, with all due respect to Senna, I think his peak was behind him when destiny took him away.

regarding the 94 season. i agree, Senna's best years were already behind him. But even with a diminishing ability I have know doubt that he had more than enough talent and passion to clinch the title. Particularly taking into account that Hill managedto challenge for the title until the last race. But remember that, particularly in 93, senna was with considerably lesser equipment but he managed to prduce some incredible races (Donnington and Monaco...).

But the problem with this discussion is what does "the best" mean? If it's about titles then Schu wins without contest, and drivers like Moss or Gilles wouldn't stand a chance. If it means "perfect driving technique" then Prost would probably walk away with the title. For me personally "the best" doesn't only mean skill and technique. It means above all passion and courage. I've always fancied drivers that drive with their heart and their *you know what* rather than their mind. It is those tales of courage, of doing the unimaginable and victory against all odds that bring emotion to my heart. That's why my choices are Ayrton, Gilles and Tazio.