Sir Lewis Hamilton is the GOAT

[Anyopenroad]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Why would Stewart be ****ed off with Hamilton’s success?

Well that would be something Stewart would have to answer, if indeed he even knows. There aren't any likely reasons which reflect well on him.

But for whatever reason, he has spent the last decade sniping and sniding at Hamilton, with only the most grudging of acknowledgement when he can't avoid it.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Anyopenroad

Well that would be something Stewart would have to answer, if indeed he even knows. There aren't any likely reasons which reflect well on him.

But for whatever reason, he has spent the last decade sniping and sniding at Hamilton, with only the most grudging of acknowledgement when he can't avoid it.

Maybe it's a generational thing and the disapproval of someone's life style, which can happen when there is a difference in generations, something that's alluded to in this article?

https://inews.co.uk/sport/formula-on...drivers-714205

[Anyopenroad]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Maybe it's a generation thing and the disapproval of someone's life style, which can happen when there is a difference in generations, something that's alluded to in this article?

Yeah maybe, though again that leaves us with the question of why Hamilton's "lifestyle" causes such some people to have such palpitations. He's frankly something of a saint compared to the hellraisers the sport has cherished over the years.

I suspect it's more that Stewart has an absolutely enormous ego and quite likes being considered Britain's top F1 dog. Only room for one king on this particular small hill.

But what do I know, I'm just a bloke on the internet. I met Stirling Moss once and thought he was an utter p***k. But then he goes and leaves a bunch of lovely and considerate gifts to lots of people in his will so what do I know!

[S griffin]

Hamilton ain’t perfect. I don’t fully agree with his lifestyle, although I don’t think he’s that bad a person. Just maybe said and done things that haven’t shown him in a great light

I think Stewart is an alright person and he’s entitled to his opinion. Maybe his comments have been come across a bit wrong, but at the same he could at least show a bit more acknowledgement to Lewis’ achievements. Lewis for sure has had it easier than most, certainly he’s had luck on his side, but you can’t win the title just based on luck, championships are won by doing a better job than others, which he has done several times in the past. Stewart also has a lot to be proud of in his career and what he’s done for the sport, so he doesn’t really have anything to gain from those comments, even if I do see a bit of where’s he coming from

Fact is we’ve had loads of great F1 drivers through the years and one thing we should be grateful for is how much safety has improved, even if it will never be 100 percent safe. The fact is people like Moss and Stewart and others from that era probably thankful the got out of racing alive, unlike Senna and others. And I take my hat off to the great drivers of the past, they certainly did the sport proud and I look forward to more great drivers in the future. F1 is about great cars sure, but the drivers are a greater part of the sport and that’s why I watch it

[john ruston]

Not sure what point your making as think the Stewart ego thing is the answer to Stewart’s antipathy towards Hamilton.He is no longer British no1 in most people’s opinion. It’s a generational thing and Wee Jackie doesn’t probably understand Hamilton’s lifestyle.
Seems his lifestyle suits him but can’t see Lewis on Question of Sport anytime soon.He’s different but it works. Jackie has had his time and now LH has his.
Would think that’s a difficult thing to live with ‘ yesterday man’
It happens to all sports , look at cricket and football pundits.

[Anyopenroad]

Originally Posted by S griffin

Word salad

This reminds me of the scenes in the Lord Of The Rings films when Gollum/Smeagol is having an internal debate with himself out loud.

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by 2 litre Touring Car Star

What's BTCC frog's opinion when he finds out that in the 8 full seasons they raced in F1 (Including season where they missed 2 races each), Schumacher drove a car that finished ahead of Hakkinen's in 7 of those seasons?

In the one season Hakkinen drove the better car overall, he belatedly won a championship.

Not 3 in 5 seasosn Hakkinen drove an inferior car, 7 of 8! On top of that, it was normally 2 positions worse off in the wcc.

Then you add that prior to F1, both won F3 titles, but Hakkinen turned up in the German series and won there as well.

How confident is he of his opinion?

I'm not defending him. I'm not defending anyone. I'm simply making the point that on an internet discussion forum, everyone has opinions. I might think you talk a load of know it all tosh, but I understand that (should that be the case) it's your opinion, which may or may not amount to a hill of beans....

Originally Posted by Adam43

Yes, I don't really agree with it.

It's an interesting read.

I don't agree with it either. But I'm not about to break into a sweat about it.....

[BTCC frog]

Okay, I'm going to have a go at ranking them:

1. Lewis Hamilton - so with Schumacher out of the running, I am going to agree with this thread and say that he is the GOAT. Most successful ever, of course, and the current set of drivers are probably the best in the sport's history, which makes his seven titles all the more impressive (even if the Mercedes team deserves more of the credit). And Bottas is very underrated.
2. Michael Schumacher - not the GOAT because of Jerez 1997, but I think, on pure driving ability, he was the best. If every driver in history drove a championship in equal cars, I feel confident that he would win.
3. Juan Manuel Fangio - whilst it is hard to know how good he is because the 1950s were so uncompetitive, he did beat Stirling Moss, who is more of a known quantity, so I am going to give him the benefit of the doubt and have him 3rd.
4. Jackie Stewart - I think he is definitely underrated by many fans, but a bit overrated by that Autosport article. The article has persuaded me to move him up a few spots from his previous placing of sixth.
5. Jim Clark - Okay, he only won in the best car, but that doesn't mean he couldn't have won in a less good car. He should have had more than two titles, but he did have a lot of unreliability.
6. Alberto Ascari - not much data for him, but he had the most dominant season ever in 1952, and was arguably slightly faster than Fangio (if less complete).
7. Fernando Alonso - controversial? He was beaten by a rookie Hamilton, but that was his worst ever season, and he went on to totally annihilate some really good drivers, Massa and Raikkonen, before comfortably beating Button.
8. Alain Prost - maybe this is a bit harsh, but I believe in mathematics and the F1 metrics model has him 20th. This is too extreme, but for this reason he cannot be any higher than eighth.
9. Stirling Moss - the greatest driver never to win the championship. And better than most who did. Maybe he, Fangio and Ascari shouldn't even be in the running, but I will give them all the benefit of the doubt.
10. Ayrton Senna - same reasoning as Prost, but he ranks behind his great rival, even without factoring in the controversial collision, because he was more likely to make mistakes, with Monaco 1988 the most famous example. Behind Moss only because of Japan 1990, otherwise he would be ninth.
11. Niki Lauda - it is true that he was not as fast as Prost, and was arguably not even the fastest of his first stint in Formula 1 (Peterson was very quick), but he was a very complete driver, and the bravery he showed, not just to return after Nurburgring 1976, but to not race in Fuji, earns him more points.
12. Max Verstappen - again, controversial maybe, but the current set of drivers are surely the best in history (based on the fact that there are so many racing drivers now, and these are meant to be the 20 best). By the time he retires, I can almost guarantee that he will be higher on this list.
13. Sebastian Vettel - the 2020 version of Vettel wouldn't even make the top 100, but, even if his Ferrari days were disappointing, during his Red Bull days he was probably the best on the grid (except maybe Alonso). And he also annihilated Kimi Raikkonen in the same car.
14. Jochen Rindt - the only posthumous world champion, and he was very quick. That 1970 season was one of the most impressive in history from one driver.
15. Mika Hakkinen - not on Schumacher's level, but definitely the second best of that era, and he was very fast and didn't make too many mistakes.
16. Carlos Reutemann - another controversial one, but he did well against Lauda, and he beat the highly rated Villeneuve by a long way (admittedly Villeneuve was in his first full season). He deserved a championship.
17. Giles Villeneuve - I think he is overrated by many, as he definitely shouldn't be in the top ten. He was very fast, but he was beaten by both Reutemann and Scheckter. At his best, he would have beaten Scheckter, and maybe he would be higher on this list if he had lived. But there is not enough data to suggest he should be higher in my opinion.
18. Jenson Button - he beat Hamilton in the same car over their three years as teammates (although Hamilton had more bad luck), and he gave Alonso a good run for his money in their first season as teammates (before being dominated by Alonso in 2016).
19. Ronnie Peterson - some will think he should be higher, some will think he should be lower. He was extremely fast, and another driver who deserved a championship. Although Andretti beat him in the same car, he was clearly the number two that year, and would have won the championship with the equal chance, I think.
20. Nico Rosberg - Again, it required luck for him to beat Hamilton in the same car, but it required skill too, and he won nine races in 2016. Here's an interesting thought: if Hamilton had stayed at McLaren in 2013, and had signed a long-term contract, Rosberg might now be a seven-time champion. Then would he be higher on this list? Impossible to say.

So there is my top twenty. A few others could have appeared on that list, most notably James Hunt, who just missed out, and Mansell and Piquet, who also weren't too far away. Mansell, in my opinion, had a much faster car than his rivals for most of his career, and when he was teammate to Prost, Prost dominated him. Piquet therefore can't be here either because Mansell was better than him in 86-87. That may be harsh on Piquet, when Reutemann makes the list, but I think that Williams wasn't necessarily that dominant in 1980-81 (Jones isn't far off this list either). Ricciardo and Leclerc were close too, and I can almost guarantee that Charles Leclerc will be there soon, once he cuts out the incidents.

I don't want to have Hamilton at number one. I feel that he has too many flaws to be the greatest - he was not even the best driver on the grid in his McLaren days, as Vettel and Alonso were better. But I feel that all the other drivers had more flaws (including Stewart, who wasn't quite fast enough to be the greatest). Maybe one day someone will come along with no flaws at all, or at least fewer than Hamilton. Verstappen and Leclerc are the most likely candidates of the current lot, but maybe it will be someone who we haven't even heard of yet!

So that is my ranking for now, but it is open for change if somebody can change my mind.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by BTCC frog

Okay, I'm going to have a go at ranking them:

1. Lewis Hamilton - so with Schumacher out of the running, I am going to agree with this thread and say that he is the GOAT. Most successful ever, of course, and the current set of drivers are probably the best in the sport's history, which makes his seven titles all the more impressive (even if the Mercedes team deserves more of the credit). And Bottas is very underrated.
2. Michael Schumacher - not the GOAT because of Jerez 1997, but I think, on pure driving ability, he was the best. If every driver in history drove a championship in equal cars, I feel confident that he would win.
3. Juan Manuel Fangio - whilst it is hard to know how good he is because the 1950s were so uncompetitive, he did beat Stirling Moss, who is more of a known quantity, so I am going to give him the benefit of the doubt and have him 3rd.
4. Jackie Stewart - I think he is definitely underrated by many fans, but a bit overrated by that Autosport article. The article has persuaded me to move him up a few spots from his previous placing of sixth.
5. Jim Clark - Okay, he only won in the best car, but that doesn't mean he couldn't have won in a less good car. He should have had more than two titles, but he did have a lot of unreliability.
6. Alberto Ascari - not much data for him, but he had the most dominant season ever in 1952, and was arguably slightly faster than Fangio (if less complete).
7. Fernando Alonso - controversial? He was beaten by a rookie Hamilton, but that was his worst ever season, and he went on to totally annihilate some really good drivers, Massa and Raikkonen, before comfortably beating Button.
8. Alain Prost - maybe this is a bit harsh, but I believe in mathematics and the F1 metrics model has him 20th. This is too extreme, but for this reason he cannot be any higher than eighth.
9. Stirling Moss - the greatest driver never to win the championship. And better than most who did. Maybe he, Fangio and Ascari shouldn't even be in the running, but I will give them all the benefit of the doubt.
10. Ayrton Senna - same reasoning as Prost, but he ranks behind his great rival, even without factoring in the controversial collision, because he was more likely to make mistakes, with Monaco 1988 the most famous example. Behind Moss only because of Japan 1990, otherwise he would be ninth.
11. Niki Lauda - it is true that he was not as fast as Prost, and was arguably not even the fastest of his first stint in Formula 1 (Peterson was very quick), but he was a very complete driver, and the bravery he showed, not just to return after Nurburgring 1976, but to not race in Fuji, earns him more points.
12. Max Verstappen - again, controversial maybe, but the current set of drivers are surely the best in history (based on the fact that there are so many racing drivers now, and these are meant to be the 20 best). By the time he retires, I can almost guarantee that he will be higher on this list.
13. Sebastian Vettel - the 2020 version of Vettel wouldn't even make the top 100, but, even if his Ferrari days were disappointing, during his Red Bull days he was probably the best on the grid (except maybe Alonso). And he also annihilated Kimi Raikkonen in the same car.
14. Jochen Rindt - the only posthumous world champion, and he was very quick. That 1970 season was one of the most impressive in history from one driver.
15. Mika Hakkinen - not on Schumacher's level, but definitely the second best of that era, and he was very fast and didn't make too many mistakes.
16. Carlos Reutemann - another controversial one, but he did well against Lauda, and he beat the highly rated Villeneuve by a long way (admittedly Villeneuve was in his first full season). He deserved a championship.
17. Giles Villeneuve - I think he is overrated by many, as he definitely shouldn't be in the top ten. He was very fast, but he was beaten by both Reutemann and Scheckter. At his best, he would have beaten Scheckter, and maybe he would be higher on this list if he had lived. But there is not enough data to suggest he should be higher in my opinion.
18. Jenson Button - he beat Hamilton in the same car over their three years as teammates (although Hamilton had more bad luck), and he gave Alonso a good run for his money in their first season as teammates (before being dominated by Alonso in 2016).
19. Ronnie Peterson - some will think he should be higher, some will think he should be lower. He was extremely fast, and another driver who deserved a championship. Although Andretti beat him in the same car, he was clearly the number two that year, and would have won the championship with the equal chance, I think.
20. Nico Rosberg - Again, it required luck for him to beat Hamilton in the same car, but it required skill too, and he won nine races in 2016. Here's an interesting thought: if Hamilton had stayed at McLaren in 2013, and had signed a long-term contract, Rosberg might now be a seven-time champion. Then would he be higher on this list? Impossible to say.

So there is my top twenty. A few others could have appeared on that list, most notably James Hunt, who just missed out, and Mansell and Piquet, who also weren't too far away. Mansell, in my opinion, had a much faster car than his rivals for most of his career, and when he was teammate to Prost, Prost dominated him. Piquet therefore can't be here either because Mansell was better than him in 86-87. That may be harsh on Piquet, when Reutemann makes the list, but I think that Williams wasn't necessarily that dominant in 1980-81 (Jones isn't far off this list either). Ricciardo and Leclerc were close too, and I can almost guarantee that Charles Leclerc will be there soon, once he cuts out the incidents.

I don't want to have Hamilton at number one. I feel that he has too many flaws to be the greatest - he was not even the best driver on the grid in his McLaren days, as Vettel and Alonso were better. But I feel that all the other drivers had more flaws (including Stewart, who wasn't quite fast enough to be the greatest). Maybe one day someone will come along with no flaws at all, or at least fewer than Hamilton. Verstappen and Leclerc are the most likely candidates of the current lot, but maybe it will be someone who we haven't even heard of yet!

So that is my ranking for now, but it is open for change if somebody can change my mind.

Why is Schumacher out of the running?

[BTCC frog]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Why is Schumacher out of the running?

Jerez 1997. Someone who crashes into a competitor deliberately cannot be the greatest, even if he was, in my opinion, the greatest ever on pure driver ability.

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Why is Schumacher out of the running?

Ralf?

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by BTCC frog

Jerez 1997. Someone who crashes into a competitor deliberately cannot be the greatest, even if he was, in my opinion, the greatest ever on pure driver ability.

And yet there is no mention of Prost on Senna in 1989......

Anyhow, BTCC frog's list is an entertaining read (as I trust it was intended to be). There are many aspects of it that I would disagree with, however, as I said earlier, as to my disagreement, a hill of beans it doth not make.......because it's his opinion....

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by BTCC frog

So that is my ranking for now, but it is open for change if somebody can change my mind.

while i personally agree with LH at 1, but i will admit after reading that article you had posted a while back plus the case made for Jackie i have to acknowledge that a couple of bad season by LH has made him more of a problematic number 1 pick for me thus forcing me to question the position i had taken earlier on in this thread.

rather, LH being number 1 should necessitate Jens and Nico being higher on the list (and arguably i would have Nico ahead of Jense) but since it would be difficult to say who either should move ahead of, the simpler solution would mean having to move LH down the list?

if that makes sense.

[john ruston]

If anyone watched Clark v Stewart in 65/66/67 they would realise Clark was a superior driver and could drive anything.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by john ruston

If anyone watched Clark v Stewart in 65/66/67 they would realise Clark was a superior driver and could drive anything.

i havent of course. just seen a spattering of footage and first and second hand accounts from those who did see them race each other.

but back then the TV experience was surely different, longer tracks with less camera positions so less coverage overall. watching live (either of TV or in person) i would imagine was made even more challenging as you only had one vantage point and very little to help you see what happened at every other part of the track.

i appreciate that the numbers may back up what you say, but in fairness how much could anyone have 'watched' back then?

since about the mid to late 90s, almost every second that a top driver is on track is filmed. by the mid 2000s that was probably extended to every driver on track. obviously not everyone's broadcast showed any of this, but basically someone with access can theoretically watch every lap LH has ever completed in F1. mind you this may also exist for some drives from back in the day as well...i dont know that it doesnt.

anyways, this of course may also be a reason why LH doesnt deserve the top ranking because every mistake he has made has also been 'watched', analyzed, and included as part of the discussion.

so i suppose this is just another reason why one cannot compare across eras.

[john ruston]

I remember being given a lecture by DSJ whilst sitting on outside at Burneville and he explained exactly how good Clark was compared to others.
Probably a better judge of drivers than anyone with an opinion on here!
Amazing how much footage was taken in that period.

[chillibowl]

i do wish more of it was available. unfortunately, the lack of footage does makes these types of discussions more difficult.

[BTCC frog]

Originally Posted by john ruston

I remember being given a lecture by DSJ whilst sitting on outside at Burneville and he explained exactly how good Clark was compared to others.
Probably a better judge of drivers than anyone with an opinion on here!
Amazing how much footage was taken in that period.

Yes, definitely a better judge. Apart from the odd piece of footage (which doesn't really count) I haven't seen half of the drivers on my list race. Those rankings entirely come from many books read on Formula 1, and the odd piece of footage. Anyone who reads my posts on racefans will know that I have a lot of opinions on driver rankings from current and recent seasons, and in terms of the last ten years I think my rankings are very trustworthy. For example, I feel pretty confident that Button was better than Rosberg, but less good than Vettel. But for Clark vs Stewart, I really have no idea.

[john ruston]

The corner was not much different than in early sixties when Moss was injured and Bristow killed.
Different days and needed different mindset to drivers in last thirty years.
Difficult to make comparisons.
The only driver that seems undervalued is Rindt who needed another three seasons. Pity that his agreed move to Brabham didn’t happen.He was good!

[Skam85]

Originally Posted by BTCC frog

Okay, I'm going to have a go at ranking them:

1. Lewis Hamilton - so with Schumacher out of the running, I am going to agree with this thread and say that he is the GOAT. Most successful ever, of course, and the current set of drivers are probably the best in the sport's history, which makes his seven titles all the more impressive (even if the Mercedes team deserves more of the credit). And Bottas is very underrated.
2. Michael Schumacher - not the GOAT because of Jerez 1997, but I think, on pure driving ability, he was the best. If every driver in history drove a championship in equal cars, I feel confident that he would win.
3. Juan Manuel Fangio - whilst it is hard to know how good he is because the 1950s were so uncompetitive, he did beat Stirling Moss, who is more of a known quantity, so I am going to give him the benefit of the doubt and have him 3rd.
4. Jackie Stewart - I think he is definitely underrated by many fans, but a bit overrated by that Autosport article. The article has persuaded me to move him up a few spots from his previous placing of sixth.
5. Jim Clark - Okay, he only won in the best car, but that doesn't mean he couldn't have won in a less good car. He should have had more than two titles, but he did have a lot of unreliability.
6. Alberto Ascari - not much data for him, but he had the most dominant season ever in 1952, and was arguably slightly faster than Fangio (if less complete).
7. Fernando Alonso - controversial? He was beaten by a rookie Hamilton, but that was his worst ever season, and he went on to totally annihilate some really good drivers, Massa and Raikkonen, before comfortably beating Button.
8. Alain Prost - maybe this is a bit harsh, but I believe in mathematics and the F1 metrics model has him 20th. This is too extreme, but for this reason he cannot be any higher than eighth.
9. Stirling Moss - the greatest driver never to win the championship. And better than most who did. Maybe he, Fangio and Ascari shouldn't even be in the running, but I will give them all the benefit of the doubt.
10. Ayrton Senna - same reasoning as Prost, but he ranks behind his great rival, even without factoring in the controversial collision, because he was more likely to make mistakes, with Monaco 1988 the most famous example. Behind Moss only because of Japan 1990, otherwise he would be ninth.
11. Niki Lauda - it is true that he was not as fast as Prost, and was arguably not even the fastest of his first stint in Formula 1 (Peterson was very quick), but he was a very complete driver, and the bravery he showed, not just to return after Nurburgring 1976, but to not race in Fuji, earns him more points.
12. Max Verstappen - again, controversial maybe, but the current set of drivers are surely the best in history (based on the fact that there are so many racing drivers now, and these are meant to be the 20 best). By the time he retires, I can almost guarantee that he will be higher on this list.
13. Sebastian Vettel - the 2020 version of Vettel wouldn't even make the top 100, but, even if his Ferrari days were disappointing, during his Red Bull days he was probably the best on the grid (except maybe Alonso). And he also annihilated Kimi Raikkonen in the same car.
14. Jochen Rindt - the only posthumous world champion, and he was very quick. That 1970 season was one of the most impressive in history from one driver.
15. Mika Hakkinen - not on Schumacher's level, but definitely the second best of that era, and he was very fast and didn't make too many mistakes.
16. Carlos Reutemann - another controversial one, but he did well against Lauda, and he beat the highly rated Villeneuve by a long way (admittedly Villeneuve was in his first full season). He deserved a championship.
17. Giles Villeneuve - I think he is overrated by many, as he definitely shouldn't be in the top ten. He was very fast, but he was beaten by both Reutemann and Scheckter. At his best, he would have beaten Scheckter, and maybe he would be higher on this list if he had lived. But there is not enough data to suggest he should be higher in my opinion.
18. Jenson Button - he beat Hamilton in the same car over their three years as teammates (although Hamilton had more bad luck), and he gave Alonso a good run for his money in their first season as teammates (before being dominated by Alonso in 2016).
19. Ronnie Peterson - some will think he should be higher, some will think he should be lower. He was extremely fast, and another driver who deserved a championship. Although Andretti beat him in the same car, he was clearly the number two that year, and would have won the championship with the equal chance, I think.
20. Nico Rosberg - Again, it required luck for him to beat Hamilton in the same car, but it required skill too, and he won nine races in 2016. Here's an interesting thought: if Hamilton had stayed at McLaren in 2013, and had signed a long-term contract, Rosberg might now be a seven-time champion. Then would he be higher on this list? Impossible to say.

So there is my top twenty. A few others could have appeared on that list, most notably James Hunt, who just missed out, and Mansell and Piquet, who also weren't too far away. Mansell, in my opinion, had a much faster car than his rivals for most of his career, and when he was teammate to Prost, Prost dominated him. Piquet therefore can't be here either because Mansell was better than him in 86-87. That may be harsh on Piquet, when Reutemann makes the list, but I think that Williams wasn't necessarily that dominant in 1980-81 (Jones isn't far off this list either). Ricciardo and Leclerc were close too, and I can almost guarantee that Charles Leclerc will be there soon, once he cuts out the incidents.

I don't want to have Hamilton at number one. I feel that he has too many flaws to be the greatest - he was not even the best driver on the grid in his McLaren days, as Vettel and Alonso were better. But I feel that all the other drivers had more flaws (including Stewart, who wasn't quite fast enough to be the greatest). Maybe one day someone will come along with no flaws at all, or at least fewer than Hamilton. Verstappen and Leclerc are the most likely candidates of the current lot, but maybe it will be someone who we haven't even heard of yet!

So that is my ranking for now, but it is open for change if somebody can change my mind.

Impressive list. Mostly because it's impressive that I disagree with almost every single point made

[Anyopenroad]

Originally Posted by Skam85

Impressive list. Mostly because it's impressive that I disagree with almost every single point made

It’s great that you quoted the entire post though, to save everyone having to scroll up to read what you disagree with.

[Aysedasi]

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Anyopenroad

It’s great that you quoted the entire post though, to save everyone having to scroll up to read what you disagree with.

But do you know which ones? It's only 'almost every point' - which leads me to think that there are some points Skam85 agrees with?

[bjohnsonsmith]

Why not conduct a poll?

[john ruston]

Which drivers are included in poll?����!
Should start a discussion