F1 Racing's Top 100 Drivers of all Time (merged)

[krt917]

I don't think it was just Piquet's work ethic that kept Honda on board. My point about Lotus was to raise an issue with Deeks' assertion that Piquet was great in poor cars and Mansell wasn't. I was always under the impression that ot was the other way round!

Anyway, as I said to Deeks about Jack Brabham, I'm not saying that Piquet wasn't a great driver. I just don't think he was quite as good as Mansell. I appreciate that the F1 racing 'election' had him in the top 10, but there have already been several comments on this thread which indicate that the list is not definitive, and never can be. However, it's good for debate!

I don't happen to think Piquet deserves to be in the top 10 (or to be 3x WDC), but you do. That's fine, though - as I said above - I also have issues with exactly what motivated him. I can't think of many other world champions who erred so much on the side of caution when it came to points-getting Vs race wins.

[jiggly_puff]

what suprises me about the list is how low ralf is - i know he is not very popular and inconsistent but hes better than some of the people ahead of him!

[guelta]

Thanks a lot for posting on my message!!

I know that it is a bit unfair to blame Lauda for Ring's loss, but the thing is I'm a great fan of it and he tried to force the other drivers to boicot the track, even great Regazzoni laughed at him for this. Lauda always hated the Ring, that's why i blame him, not for his absurd accident.

I don't like Prost at all, i can demonstrate to whom wants to hear me how mediocre racer he was.

On the other hand I find Nelson a marvellous racer, who can forget Hungaroring 86, the battle with great Ayrton, the Nelson's overtaking at the end of the straight on the outside, Prost had never done that extraordinary job!!!

I don´t forget 98, 99 and 2000 seasons in which Mika beated Schumacher with no sympathy, remember Spa 2000!!

[guelta]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by DieRitter
I totally agree with you, DieRitter, my friend!!!

Nelson has been one of the greatest!!!

Brands Hatch 83, Canada 84, Germany 86, Hungary 86, Italy 86, Australia 90 are a few examples of his majesty!!

I understand that Prost's fans may have hated him for these demonstrations of superb racing. I'm sorry for mediocre Prost.

[Kicking-back]

Originally posted by guelta

I don't like Prost at all, i can demonstrate to whom wants to hear me how mediocre racer he was.

If that's how you describe 51 wins and 4 world championships, I'd love to be a mediocre racer myself.

[guelta]

By the way, does anybody remember the stupid move Prost made against Nelson in Zandvoort 83? Tricky Prost returned to do the same in Japan 89 against Ayrton.

[guelta]

Originally posted by Kicking-back
If that's how you describe 51 wins and 4 world championships, I'd love to be a mediocre racer myself.

Ok, let's get into it!!

1983 : Prost drove the best car, but he was beated by Piquet with no sympathy in the last three races!! So he was dismissed by Renault.

1984 : Lauda won him at the age of 35, Prost was not able to take the great McLaren Porsche to success

1985 : McLaren was a superior machine, anyway this is the only title he deserved

1986 : Piquet was the most brilliant of the season by far, Prost had all the world's luck in Adelaida for Mansell's puncture and Nelson's late and unnecessary pit stop in lap 64, when he was going to win the race.

1987: He did a ridiculous job.

1988: Ayrton destroyed him, if Jean Louis Schlesser hadn't be on Monza, Ayrton would have humiliated Prost even more.

1989: A dirty shame it was what Prost and Balestre did Senna in Suzuka. One of the ever worst moments in F1 history.

1990: Ayrton beated him with a McLaren that was lightyears away from the best Ferrari, designed by John Barnard. Even Prost himself admitted it.

1991: Prost was actually ridiculous so that Ferrari team fired him even before season's end. The same old story that in 1983 when he was fired by Renault team.

1992: Year off, after such a ridiculous 91 season.

1993: Senna demonstrated him in Donington Park what a true racer was. Prost drove an incredible superior machinery, in spite of that, most races was beaten by rookie Damon Hill. Senna and Hill were the main actors. Prost only showed mediocrity.

[ensign14]

Originally posted by guelta
1984 : Lauda won him at the age of 35, Prost was not able to take the great McLaren Porsche to success

1988: Ayrton destroyed him, if Jean Louis Schlesser hadn't be on Monza, Ayrton would have humiliated Prost even more.

I can't be arsed to have a go at the rest, but you cannot have both of these. In 1984 Prost won more races; in 1988 Prost scored more points. Hardly destruction.

[Adam43]

Didn't Prost out-qualify Lauda by 1.5s on average in 1984? Something like that. In the end he lost by 1/2pt!

Also the other years. I couldn't disagree more. When he was beaten (which wasn't that often) it took a Senna to do it! Hardly proof he's a poor driver, unless of course Senna was rubbish too?

Prost is undoubtedly one of the best drivers ever. Take 1986, I don't think you have demonstrated anything. That McLaren had no right in being in with a chance of the world title in the final race of the season. It is a credit to the man that he gave it a chance.

[deeks6]

Originally posted by guelta
Ok, let's get into it!!

1983 : Prost drove the best car, but he was beated by Piquet with no sympathy in the last three races!! So he was dismissed by Renault.

1984 : Lauda won him at the age of 35, Prost was not able to take the great McLaren Porsche to success

1985 : McLaren was a superior machine, anyway this is the only title he deserved

1986 : Piquet was the most brilliant of the season by far, Prost had all the world's luck in Adelaida for Mansell's puncture and Nelson's late and unnecessary pit stop in lap 64, when he was going to win the race.

1987: He did a ridiculous job.

1988: Ayrton destroyed him, if Jean Louis Schlesser hadn't be on Monza, Ayrton would have humiliated Prost even more.

1989: A dirty shame it was what Prost and Balestre did Senna in Suzuka. One of the ever worst moments in F1 history.

1990: Ayrton beated him with a McLaren that was lightyears away from the best Ferrari, designed by John Barnard. Even Prost himself admitted it.

1991: Prost was actually ridiculous so that Ferrari team fired him even before season's end. The same old story that in 1983 when he was fired by Renault team.

1992: Year off, after such a ridiculous 91 season.

1993: Senna demonstrated him in Donington Park what a true racer was. Prost drove an incredible superior machinery, in spite of that, most races was beaten by rookie Damon Hill. Senna and Hill were the main actors. Prost only showed mediocrity.

This is obvious flame bait, but I'll bite...

This post shows complete ignorance and disrespect for one of the greatest race drivers in history. Not only that, he was also one of the cleanest and most sporting drivers ever. As for being a gutsy racer, well check out a tape of Esoril where Senna tried to run him into the pit wall but he kept his boot into it and made the pass.

Lets go through the years (Properly):

1980 Rookie Prost outqualifies experienced Watson 8-5 and wins 2-0 in races both finished. Points 5 to 6 Watson

1981 Prost in his 2nd year wins 3 races and finishes 5th in WDC in the notoriously unreliable Renault. Beats teammate Arnoux (Number 1 driver in team) 9-5 Q and 4-0 Races. Points 41-11

1982 Prost takes 2 wins and 4th WDC in the (still unreliable) Renault. Against Arnoux (2 wins) 8-8 Q and 2-1 Races. Points 34-28

1983 Prost 2nd WDC with 4 wins. Against Cheever 13-2 Q and 3-1 Races. Points 57-22

1984 McLaren get Prost back after trying for a long time. He would win the WDC if Monaco was not reduced to half points. In any case he comes 2nd to Lauda 71.5 points to 72, depsite winning 7 races to 5, outqualifying him 15-1 and beating him 5-3 in races.

1985 Wins WDC with 5 wins. Against Lauda (1 win) 13-1 Q and 2-1 races. Points 76-14.

1986 Again wins WDC with 4 wins. Against Rosberg 12-4 Q and 6-1 races. Keke is later quoted as saying "I thought I was the fastest driver in the world until I went to McLaren with Alain Prost". Points 74-22

1987 4th in WDC with 3 wins. Against Johansson 16-0 Q and 7-3 races. Points 46-30

1988 Finishes second (7 wins) to Senna (8 wins) in WDC despite finishing 11 points in front of him. Against Senna he is towelled in qualifying (like everyone else) 2-14 but is 5-7 in races. Points 105-94

1989 Wins WDC with 4 wins. Against Senna its 2-14 Q and 1-7 races but Prost manages to bring the car home far more often. Points 81-60. Senna deserved all he got for a move into the chicane that was never on.

1990 2nd in WDC with 5 wins. Against Mansell its 8-8 Q and 5-3 races. Points 73-37. Nigel probably felt like Rosberg. And the Ferrari was nowhere near the car that the McLaren was.

Noticed that the anti Prost man never mentioned Suzuka where Senna simply and blatantly bashed Prost off the track and got away with it, despite even saying he would do it before the race started ("if he gets to the corner first, he'd better not turn in, because he's not going to make it"). Yes, Senna SHOULD have been able to start on the cleaner outside of the track but that behaviour (and his crazy religious rantings) turned me off him forever. A shame, because he was a great driver, not so clean but probably the fastest ever.

1991 5th in WDC in dog Ferrari and, apart from his rookie year in a cr@p car, is the first year he wins no races. Against Alesi it's 13-2 Q and 4-1 races. points 34-21

1993 Comes back and wins WDC with 7 wins. Against Hill its 14-2 Q and 6-5 races. Points 99-69

Apart from Cheever and, perhaps, Johansson, Prost always had very good teammates (unlike some other Prima Donnas) such as Alesi, Arnoux, Watson and other WDC's Lauda, Senna, Hill and Rosberg. I cannot think of another driver who had 4 World Champions as teammates (and in 6 of his 13 years). Despite all this, his overall record against teammates reads like this:

Qualifying: 133-66 (52-42 against other WDC's)
Races: 52-33 (24-27)
Points: 858.5-476 (579.5-368)
Wins: 51-26 (39-24)

As the man said, if that's a mediocre record, I'll take it. Just quietly, every other GP driver in history (apart from Schumacher) would take it too...

Nelson Piquet himself would be ashamed of any true motor racing fan who served up this rubbish ... and your hero Senna only ever really respected one other driver - guess who that was?

[DieRitter]

I feel we are back to the 80s with all this nostalgia!

Senna, Prost, Piquet, Lauda, and Mansell. No doubt, all great drivers. If they make or not your top ten list I don't know, but they certainly do for me.

Even out of the track these guys were extremely entertaining:



And who could forget Senna in his last weekend in Imola greeting Prost in the radio and saying how much F1 missed him.

[deeks6]

Originally posted by krt917
Don't you just love 'greatest driver debates'?!



I guess you are referring to me Deeks, but I would like to say that I rate Brabham as a Great driver, no doubt about it. However, there were drivers around at the time who were as great or greater. Not many, but a few, most obviously Clark and Moss (I'm sure I've mentioned before Jack's, and other drivers', comments placing Moss as the man to beat until his accident). To list them as you do (see below!) is a bit unfair because factors lke the cars the drivers were driving for scome into it too. Are you suggesting Brabham was better than Stewart, for example?

]

Don't get me wrong, Brabham does indeed deserve respect, but he'd make my top 20, not top 10 (unless we do start talking about engineer-drivers of course!)

Let's forget Clark for a moment - because I saw him race many times and he was simply on a different level - and concentrate on the others then.

Stirling Moss was undoubtedly one of the FASTEST drivers of all time (although clearly behind Fangio) and obviously unlucky not to be WDC in 1958 but he was not good at bringing the equipment home. To finish first, first you maust finish and this was Stirling's flaw. He regarded Brabham as the man to beat.

As for Jackie Stewart:
Jack Brabham & Jackie Stewart have raced against each other in 57 races.

Head to Head Comparison
Jack Brabham Jackie Stewart
Won: 6 9
Finished Higher: 26 21
- when both finished: 6 6
Retirements: 25 30

Note that at this time Jack was in his 40's and Stewart was a "young charger". You'll find that Jack was ahead in more races too.

So, yes, he was AT LEAST as good.

As for the other drivers, Jack rates clearly higher. With no disrespect to you krt and with all due deference to the eras, I consider that rating Mansell a better driver than Jack Brabham is just plain silly. I've seen Jack race wheel-to-wheel with Jim Clark in cars powered by the same engine and even beat him. The other drivers I saw race Clark (including Stewart, Hill, Amon etc) were generally just embarrassed by him.

[krt917]

Originally posted by deeks6
Nelson Piquet himself would be ashamed of any true motor racing fan who served up this rubbish ... and your hero Senna only ever really respected one other driver - guess who that was?

Well put Deeks (all of the Prost post, not just this bit)! I was going to do a similar post in response to guelta, but I see that it is not required.

Only things I'd add, would be:
1986 - Apart from beating Rosberg, Prost kept the McLaren in with a chance of winning the title in a car that had no right to be there. I would have loved to see Mansell win in 1986, but I would never begrudge Prost that title because he drove so brilliantly and had been so close in 1983 and 1984.

1990 - To be fair to Ayrton, the Ferrari wasn't bad. On some days I think it was superior to the McLaren (though Prost's input probably had something to do with that!). Overall, I would say the McLaren tended to have more power whilst the Ferrari handled better. A good fight, shame about Suzuka...

[Mattracer]

Originally posted by guelta
Ok, let's get into it!!

1983 : Prost drove the best car, but he was beated by Piquet with no sympathy in the last three races!! So he was dismissed by Renault.

1984 : Lauda won him at the age of 35, Prost was not able to take the great McLaren Porsche to success

1985 : McLaren was a superior machine, anyway this is the only title he deserved

1986 : Piquet was the most brilliant of the season by far, Prost had all the world's luck in Adelaida for Mansell's puncture and Nelson's late and unnecessary pit stop in lap 64, when he was going to win the race.

1987: He did a ridiculous job.

1988: Ayrton destroyed him, if Jean Louis Schlesser hadn't be on Monza, Ayrton would have humiliated Prost even more.

1989: A dirty shame it was what Prost and Balestre did Senna in Suzuka. One of the ever worst moments in F1 history.

1990: Ayrton beated him with a McLaren that was lightyears away from the best Ferrari, designed by John Barnard. Even Prost himself admitted it.

1991: Prost was actually ridiculous so that Ferrari team fired him even before season's end. The same old story that in 1983 when he was fired by Renault team.

1992: Year off, after such a ridiculous 91 season.

1993: Senna demonstrated him in Donington Park what a true racer was. Prost drove an incredible superior machinery, in spite of that, most races was beaten by rookie Damon Hill. Senna and Hill were the main actors. Prost only showed mediocrity.

What a load of absolute rubbish You have no idea what you're talking about!

If you think Prost was mediocre, go ahead. You're on your own.

That stats prove otherwise.

[krt917]

Originally posted by deeks6
Stirling Moss was undoubtedly one of the FASTEST drivers of all time (although clearly behind Fangio) and obviously unlucky not to be WDC in 1958 but he was not good at bringing the equipment home. To finish first, first you maust finish and this was Stirling's flaw. He regarded Brabham as the man to beat.

This is a myth that has been around too long. If you ask just about anyone who worked with him, they say he was not a car breaker. Cars were less reliable then generall, but Moss seemed to retire more often partly because he was almost always leading when he went out and partly because some of the cars he drove were not very good. How you can say someone who won the Nurburgirng 1000kms (4 times), Targa Florio, Mille Miglia, Pescara Gp and Monaco GP (3 times) was a car breaker is beyond me.

He, perhaps along with Nuvolari, consistenly proved capable of winning in inferior cars. The list of such drives, including his 1958 Argentine GP and 1961 Nurburgring wins, is very long. 'Black Jack' really doesn't have anything like as many.

Originally posted by deeks6
As for Jackie Stewart:
Jack Brabham & Jackie Stewart have raced against each other in 57 races.

Head to Head Comparison
Jack Brabham Jackie Stewart
Won: 6 9
Finished Higher: 26 21
- when both finished: 6 6
Retirements: 25 30

Note that at this time Jack was in his 40's and Stewart was a "young charger". You'll find that Jack was ahead in more races too.

So, yes, he was AT LEAST as good.

As for the other drivers, Jack rates clearly higher. With no disrespect to you krt and with all due deference to the eras, I consider that rating Mansell a better driver than Jack Brabham is just plain silly. I've seen Jack race wheel-to-wheel with Jim Clark in cars powered by the same engine and even beat him. The other drivers I saw race Clark (including Stewart, Hill, Amon etc) were generally just embarrassed by him.

I take your point about Mansell. I admit that there was something about his driving which particularly appealed to me (like not being intimidated by Senna) and it is very difficult to compare across eras.

However, if you are seriously suggesting that Brabham was at least as good as Stewart then I think you are being silly.

The direct comparison of stats is not fair. Stats can help, but they do not mean everything. 1965 was Stewart's first season and he was pretty decent by all accounts - often, he was the closest competitor to Clark. For 1966-67 Stewart had a dire band of BRMs to contend with, before finally getting a decent car in 1968 and 1969: one year he narrowly missed the title and in the other, he won it convincingly.

Brabham made a good engineering decision to use the Repco engines in 1966 and 1967, giving himself a decent package which was a race winning one, even briefly after the advent of the Lotus 49 (due to the 49's fragility). In 1969, he was often outpaced by a young Jacky Ickx, who has not even come into our discussion of great drivers yet (though he should). Stewart was rarely challenged to such a degree by his team-mates, apart from right at the start of his carrer - by Hill - and towards the end as Cevert started to come good.

So, I'd say Stewart well ahead of Brabham!

PS. You also do Hill and Amon a disservice, as both did challenge Clark in similar equipment at different times.

[Knowlesy]

Originally posted by guelta
Ok, let's get into it!!

1983 : Prost drove the best car, but he was beated by Piquet with no sympathy in the last three races!! So he was dismissed by Renault.

1984 : Lauda won him at the age of 35, Prost was not able to take the great McLaren Porsche to success

1985 : McLaren was a superior machine, anyway this is the only title he deserved

1986 : Piquet was the most brilliant of the season by far, Prost had all the world's luck in Adelaida for Mansell's puncture and Nelson's late and unnecessary pit stop in lap 64, when he was going to win the race.

1987: He did a ridiculous job.

1988: Ayrton destroyed him, if Jean Louis Schlesser hadn't be on Monza, Ayrton would have humiliated Prost even more.

1989: A dirty shame it was what Prost and Balestre did Senna in Suzuka. One of the ever worst moments in F1 history.

1990: Ayrton beated him with a McLaren that was lightyears away from the best Ferrari, designed by John Barnard. Even Prost himself admitted it.

1991: Prost was actually ridiculous so that Ferrari team fired him even before season's end. The same old story that in 1983 when he was fired by Renault team.

1992: Year off, after such a ridiculous 91 season.

1993: Senna demonstrated him in Donington Park what a true racer was. Prost drove an incredible superior machinery, in spite of that, most races was beaten by rookie Damon Hill. Senna and Hill were the main actors. Prost only showed mediocrity.

Brilliant!

[guelta]

Nelson Piquet himself would be ashamed of any true motor racing fan who served up this rubbish ... and your hero Senna only ever really respected one other driver - guess who that was? [/B][/QUOTE]

I was never meant to say what people want to hear. That's a thought Nelson Piquet said when he was blamed by the Tifossi for expressing freely his opinion about Enzo Ferrari. I know that it is not politically correct to dislike Balestre-Prost duet, but the point is that i'm not that at all!! I'm sorry for Prost's fans, but that's my opinion. God save Nelson and Ayrton.

[krt917]

I don't really think many people like the 'Balestre/Prost' duet (if there ever was such a thing), but it seemed like you were slagging Prots off as a driver. Calling him mediocre is just plain wrong, even if you don't like him. I never particularly liked Senna or Piquet, and Mansell said some silly things, but they were all great drivers. So was Prost.

[guelta]

I only told about facts. My opinion is as respectable as the others. Because of all these facts, not opinions, my conclusion is that Prost was not that good driver as he seemed to be. He rarely won races from start to finish, for example in 1983 he only leaded four races and Nelson Piquet leaded twelve of fifteen races, a real record!! The great question about Prost is that he managed to get on superbly with the press media. That was his real achievement. Prost won more races outside the track that inside actually!!! So it seems to be annoying for many people even to hear about him in non-respectful terms as a racer. I'm sorry if anybody feels bad about it but i have been so many years hearing nonsense and disregard about many other racers, for example, Nelson Piquet, who was in my opinion very much better than Prost as a racer as much as a person.

[Damon]

But Prost's genious was based on his dumbfounding ability to win from nowhere. Countless times he'd appear to be out of it but then pop up in the lead right when it mattered. The reason's he's held in such high regard is because his skill was less obvious but no less defined. For me he was not quite a par with Senna but a light year ahead of Piquet.

[Adam43]

guelta, perhaps others dismissed your opinion a little harshly. However what you wrote was opinion based on some facts and ignoring others.

There is no problem with liking Piquet. Or liking Piquet more than Prost. Although I, personally, don't see why that means putting Prosty down.

Prost certainly did not manage the media/press. Especially in his home country France. Most of the media there were very against him when at Renault and then when he left Renault (hardly his fault!). so I think you are incorrect to suggest he only got good press.

Another example of how he wasn't actually very good at influencing people is his GP team! That didn't turn out very well did it? and mainly because he couldn't play the game and was chastised in the industry and also by the media - again especially the French media.
Prost won many races off the track. I agree. Although I disagree with how. He won many a race off the track because of his preparation.

I feel arguments to suggest that Prost was mediocre or worse are flawed. Surely the only arguments can be about his placing amongst the other greats - Senna, Fangio, Clark, Schumacher, Stewart, etc..., and Piquet if you wish.

He also seems to be a dab hand at ice-racing too! It is great that he out there having fun.

I have also read his Principles of driving book. In that this he is a true scholar of the sport too. He also uses many photos and techniques from other drivers. He is very complimentary about others. And humble about himself.

A true gentleman.

If we want to talk facts. Its 51 GP wins, isn't it? and in an era that contained Lauda, Senna, Mansell and, of course, Piquet. He was team mates with two of these greats too and still racked up over half a century of wins at a strike rate of over 25%.

So that'll be a gentleman and a genius.

[KaiserSose]

My opinion is as respectable as the others

No...........it isn't.

[deeks6]

krt, firstly let me say, it is nice to have a reasoned argument without the silliness that the JPM/JV/MS lovers/haters get into.

Originally posted by krt917
This is a myth that has been around too long. If you ask just about anyone who worked with him, they say he was not a car breaker. Cars were less reliable then generall, but Moss seemed to retire more often partly because he was almost always leading when he went out and partly because some of the cars he drove were not very good. How you can say someone who won the Nurburgirng 1000kms (4 times), Targa Florio, Mille Miglia, Pescara Gp and Monaco GP (3 times) was a car breaker is beyond me.

He, perhaps along with Nuvolari, consistenly proved capable of winning in inferior cars. The list of such drives, including his 1958 Argentine GP and 1961 Nurburgring wins, is very long. 'Black Jack' really doesn't have anything like as many.

Now, I was'nt calling Stirling a car breaker at all but his GP record is nowhere near as good as people think - or at least what his undoubted ability deserved. So there was a flaw there somehwere.
Ina ny case, endurance races are driven a different way so the comparison is not warranted, I think.

Originally posted by krt917

I take your point about Mansell. I admit that there was something about his driving which particularly appealed to me (like not being intimidated by Senna) and it is very difficult to compare across eras.

I also take your point about Mansell. Quite frankly, I really like(d) watching guys like Mansell, Jones, Gilles Villeneuve, Peterson, Rosberg etc but their style just does not lend itself to ever becoming a real "great", depsite the various romantic views of them. My view of what makes a "great" is personified by the likes of Clark, Prost, Senna, Schumacher and, to a lesser extent, Stewart, Brabham and Piquet. Those guys would literally destroy the opposition early in a race then "cruise" to victory - win at the slowest possible speed. When their equipment was'nt up to the task, they drove sensibly and made sure that they were still running to take advantage of others misfortune (Senna perhaps learned this off Prost). The others I mentioned almost had a "win or bust" type of attitude - 2nd was never good enough - so they suffer statistically (and literally). They surely all had the raw ability to achieve much better.

Originally posted by krt917

However, if you are seriously suggesting that Brabham was at least as good as Stewart then I think you are being silly.

The direct comparison of stats is not fair. Stats can help, but they do not mean everything. 1965 was Stewart's first season and he was pretty decent by all accounts - often, he was the closest competitor to Clark. For 1966-67 Stewart had a dire band of BRMs to contend with, before finally getting a decent car in 1968 and 1969: one year he narrowly missed the title and in the other, he won it convincingly.

Brabham made a good engineering decision to use the Repco engines in 1966 and 1967, giving himself a decent package which was a race winning one, even briefly after the advent of the Lotus 49 (due to the 49's fragility). In 1969, he was often outpaced by a young Jacky Ickx, who has not even come into our discussion of great drivers yet (though he should). Stewart was rarely challenged to such a degree by his team-mates, apart from right at the start of his carrer - by Hill - and towards the end as Cevert started to come good.

So, I'd say Stewart well ahead of Brabham!

PS. You also do Hill and Amon a disservice, as both did challenge Clark in similar equipment at different times.

I said "at least" as good - too close to call because they were crossing paths at different stages of their careers. As I said, I saw both (lucky enough to meet them too) and they were both very, very good drivers - very clean, very safe, good tacticians and good race planners. You keep mentioning cars - Jack drove plenty of bad cars too - the greats take advantage of when they have competitve equipment. Jack generally only suffers in comparisons because much of the F1 press is English or "Britich" as they like to put it. Please don't take that personally, it is'nt meant to be.

I'd say the biggest thing in Jack's favour in this comparison is that, when he won his titles, the fields were better (i.e. more depth of top-line drivers and WDC's). When Jackie started winning titles, the best of the drivers were either dead, retired, past their best or no longer in competitive cars.

Let me demonstrate this - In 1966, Brabham won the title and these drivers finished next:
2. Rindt 3. Hulme 4. G.Hill 5. Clark 6. Stewart - thats 5 World Champions in the placings behind him. Also in the field were Phil Hill (WDC), Gurney, McLaren, Amon, Rodriguez, Ickx, Beltoise and Siffert.

In 1973, when Stewart won, these drivers followed:
2. Fiitipaldi 3. Peterson 4. Cevert 5. Revson 6. Hulme - thats 2 World Champions and with due respect to Emerson and Denny, I cannot place them in the same class as the likes of Jim Clark.

The point is that the field lacked depth compared to Jack's wins and you can go on about superior cars till the cows come home - Jackie had a superior car too.

So it is certainly not silly to suggest they are in the same ball park. I'd be certain of it and I'd place them just behind the 4 I mentioned and Fangio.

[Mattracer]

Originally posted by guelta
I only told about facts. My opinion is as respectable as the others. Because of all these facts, not opinions, my conclusion is that Prost was not that good driver as he seemed to be. He rarely won races from start to finish, for example in 1983 he only leaded four races and Nelson Piquet leaded twelve of fifteen races, a real record!! The great question about Prost is that he managed to get on superbly with the press media. That was his real achievement. Prost won more races outside the track that inside actually!!! So it seems to be annoying for many people even to hear about him in non-respectful terms as a racer. I'm sorry if anybody feels bad about it but i have been so many years hearing nonsense and disregard about many other racers, for example, Nelson Piquet, who was in my opinion very much better than Prost as a racer as much as a person.

About the only negative thing that could be said about Prost is his dislike of driving in the rain, and then that was after he'd already won a shedload of races, been the first to eclipse Stewart's record of 27 GP wins (seems like quite a paltry tally now doesn't it ) and been regarded as the elder statesman of F1 and in charge of his own life anyway so it's his choice. Very wise man, and he's been there- how many of us have?

[Adam43]

and even that is always taken out of perspective. Wet track he liked, not being able to see in the spray he didn't. It is dangerous, especially at those speeds. It is a lot worse than rain on a motorway too, the wet tyres on a racing car clear so much water. Folloeing one and you can't see a thing for hundreds of yards behind them.

When he pulled out of the Australian GP at the end of the first lap he was not scared of looking a foul. He point was well made and something Berger always admired. Most of the drivers agreed to do it with him, but chickened out! Berger has felt foulish and small about that since. Like Lauda in 1976 at Fuji it was a brave thing to do.