planetf1.com

It is currently Tue Oct 23, 2018 1:35 pm

All times are UTC


Forum rules


Please read the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Sep 19, 2018 6:47 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 2:48 pm
Posts: 1199
MB-BOB wrote:
Blake wrote:
Yeah, I got it... I hope time shows that you don't have a clue what you are talking about here. Stirling Moss has been remembered for fifty years already and will be fifty years from now as well. BET on it. Rindt has been tragic story and will continue to be so for long after you and I have left this world. It would be a shame if the only thing a driver is remembered for is the numbers he put up as opposed to his talent. If you are right, how is it that we still remember Gilles and Ronnie, after all it has been many decades for them as well.

I have no doubt that there will be those fans who are to lazy to do any research the history of the sport, drivers included, but those who are really fans will know if past greats. Let us hope that future fans are about more than "the numbers" or this sport is history too.
Well, the mere fact that I offered Moss and Rindt as examples worth remembering proves that my opinions are not strictly about the numbers.

My point is that Moss and Rindt (G.Villeneuve and R.Peterson, and others, too) will be fondly remembered for their overall contributions to the sport beyond what the numbers note. Further, these are positive memories on balance. They left the sport on a high note...

...unlike some current drivers who choose to disparage the sport (their cars, engines, team, the "show" in general) as they leave. Such drivers run the risk of being remembered more for their pompous attitudes than for what records they accumulate, at best leaving behind the grudging recognition of a WDC number, and little else.

In short, people naturally want to remember humble heros, not arrogant whiners.


Really? People seem to remember Senna and Schumacher the most, the complete opposites of Humble. Arrogant, and pompous. People remember them for their collisions, not positive racing and overtaking.

People will remember what's worth remembering, not just your arbitrary criteria.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 19, 2018 7:08 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23910
mikeyg123 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
I find it really hard to evaluate any pre-Lauda drivers as I'd basically be going off 3rd party articles and I don't think that's fair to the rest. But my best attempts as follows, with no ranking within the tiers themselves:

Tier 1 - the standout driver of their eras
    Senna
    Schumacher
    Clark
    Alonso

Tier 2 - the best of the rest. Top drivers but not quite on the level of those above:
    Prost
    Piquet
    Hamilton
    Vettel
    Lauda

Tier 3 - drivers who were very good on their day but not quite up there with the best
    Hakkinen
    Hill
    Brabham
    Stewart
    Fittipaldi


I'm surprised with your rating of Stewart. He was definitely the best of his day.

yeah, any pre-1980 driver is a bit of a guess, really, as I put in my disclaimer. When I started watching I don't remember Stewart being talked about in the same way as Clark, for example, although of course he was good. Happy to be wrong on it, though


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 19, 2018 1:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2017 7:05 pm
Posts: 259
Location: Dallas, TX, USA
IDrinkYourMilkshake wrote:
MB-BOB wrote:
Blake wrote:
Yeah, I got it... I hope time shows that you don't have a clue what you are talking about here. Stirling Moss has been remembered for fifty years already and will be fifty years from now as well. BET on it. Rindt has been tragic story and will continue to be so for long after you and I have left this world. It would be a shame if the only thing a driver is remembered for is the numbers he put up as opposed to his talent. If you are right, how is it that we still remember Gilles and Ronnie, after all it has been many decades for them as well.

I have no doubt that there will be those fans who are to lazy to do any research the history of the sport, drivers included, but those who are really fans will know if past greats. Let us hope that future fans are about more than "the numbers" or this sport is history too.
Well, the mere fact that I offered Moss and Rindt as examples worth remembering proves that my opinions are not strictly about the numbers.

My point is that Moss and Rindt (G.Villeneuve and R.Peterson, and others, too) will be fondly remembered for their overall contributions to the sport beyond what the numbers note. Further, these are positive memories on balance. They left the sport on a high note...

...unlike some current drivers who choose to disparage the sport (their cars, engines, team, the "show" in general) as they leave. Such drivers run the risk of being remembered more for their pompous attitudes than for what records they accumulate, at best leaving behind the grudging recognition of a WDC number, and little else.

In short, people naturally want to remember humble heros, not arrogant whiners.


Really? People seem to remember Senna and Schumacher the most, the complete opposites of Humble. Arrogant, and pompous. People remember them for their collisions, not positive racing and overtaking.

People will remember what's worth remembering, not just your arbitrary criteria.

If only we could ask this question of Enzo Ferrari. He'll tell you what's most important to him, and it will not be nuanced beyond the number of WCC trophies (statistics) left in his den.

_________________
Short-time member, Life-Long Fan from 1965 -- More than 550 Grand Prix recorded since 1982 (all but 3), and counting...


Last edited by MB-BOB on Thu Sep 20, 2018 1:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 19, 2018 3:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 28069
Zoue wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
I find it really hard to evaluate any pre-Lauda drivers as I'd basically be going off 3rd party articles and I don't think that's fair to the rest. But my best attempts as follows, with no ranking within the tiers themselves:

Tier 1 - the standout driver of their eras
    Senna
    Schumacher
    Clark
    Alonso

Tier 2 - the best of the rest. Top drivers but not quite on the level of those above:
    Prost
    Piquet
    Hamilton
    Vettel
    Lauda

Tier 3 - drivers who were very good on their day but not quite up there with the best
    Hakkinen
    Hill
    Brabham
    Stewart
    Fittipaldi


I'm surprised with your rating of Stewart. He was definitely the best of his day.

yeah, any pre-1980 driver is a bit of a guess, really, as I put in my disclaimer. When I started watching I don't remember Stewart being talked about in the same way as Clark, for example, although of course he was good. Happy to be wrong on it, though

Stewart rated Clark higher than himself so you're not wrong, Stewart however should be higher than your tier 3.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 2nd

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 19, 2018 4:57 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 14200
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
I find it really hard to evaluate any pre-Lauda drivers as I'd basically be going off 3rd party articles and I don't think that's fair to the rest. But my best attempts as follows, with no ranking within the tiers themselves:

Tier 1 - the standout driver of their eras
    Senna
    Schumacher
    Clark
    Alonso

Tier 2 - the best of the rest. Top drivers but not quite on the level of those above:
    Prost
    Piquet
    Hamilton
    Vettel
    Lauda

Tier 3 - drivers who were very good on their day but not quite up there with the best
    Hakkinen
    Hill
    Brabham
    Stewart
    Fittipaldi


I'm surprised with your rating of Stewart. He was definitely the best of his day.

yeah, any pre-1980 driver is a bit of a guess, really, as I put in my disclaimer. When I started watching I don't remember Stewart being talked about in the same way as Clark, for example, although of course he was good. Happy to be wrong on it, though

Stewart rated Clark higher than himself so you're not wrong, Stewart however should be higher than your tier 3.


I'd agree Clark was better but they didn't really race at the same time. Their careers only narrowly overlapped. Stewart was the best driver who raced in the 70s IMO.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 19, 2018 5:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 2:48 pm
Posts: 1199
MB-BOB wrote:
IDrinkYourMilkshake wrote:
MB-BOB wrote:
Blake wrote:
Yeah, I got it... I hope time shows that you don't have a clue what you are talking about here. Stirling Moss has been remembered for fifty years already and will be fifty years from now as well. BET on it. Rindt has been tragic story and will continue to be so for long after you and I have left this world. It would be a shame if the only thing a driver is remembered for is the numbers he put up as opposed to his talent. If you are right, how is it that we still remember Gilles and Ronnie, after all it has been many decades for them as well.

I have no doubt that there will be those fans who are to lazy to do any research the history of the sport, drivers included, but those who are really fans will know if past greats. Let us hope that future fans are about more than "the numbers" or this sport is history too.
Well, the mere fact that I offered Moss and Rindt as examples worth remembering proves that my opinions are not strictly about the numbers.

My point is that Moss and Rindt (G.Villeneuve and R.Peterson, and others, too) will be fondly remembered for their overall contributions to the sport beyond what the numbers note. Further, these are positive memories on balance. They left the sport on a high note...

...unlike some current drivers who choose to disparage the sport (their cars, engines, team, the "show" in general) as they leave. Such drivers run the risk of being remembered more for their pompous attitudes than for what records they accumulate, at best leaving behind the grudging recognition of a WDC number, and little else.

In short, people naturally want to remember humble heros, not arrogant whiners.


Really? People seem to remember Senna and Schumacher the most, the complete opposites of Humble. Arrogant, and pompous. People remember them for their collisions, not positive racing and overtaking.

People will remember what's worth remembering, not just your arbitrary criteria.

If only we could ask this question of Enzo Ferrari. He'll tell you what's most important to him, and it will not be nuanced beyond the number of WCC trophies left in his den.


Sure. You're totally right. That's why his favourite was Gilles Villeneuve, for the number of WDC trophies he had gotten for Ferrari.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 19, 2018 7:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2017 7:05 pm
Posts: 259
Location: Dallas, TX, USA
IDrinkYourMilkshake wrote:
Sure. You're totally right. That's why his favourite was Gilles Villeneuve, for the number of WCC trophies he had gotten for Ferrari.


There, I fixed this for you. The Enzo Ferrari I knew and watched in real time had a well-developed reputation for caring only about World Constructor's Championships. This attitude is depicted in almost every movie about the sport where the "red" team owner is depicted.

He cared about WDCs only if it also brought WCCs, which paid the bills. The minute a driver didn't bring the WCCs, said driver would be cast aside like an empty wine bottle. Unless he died in Ferrari service, like Villeneuve (I have that video recorded in my collection). In these cases, a driver was lionized as a hero by Ferrari... in part to benefit the Ferrari brand.

_________________
Short-time member, Life-Long Fan from 1965 -- More than 550 Grand Prix recorded since 1982 (all but 3), and counting...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 20, 2018 2:35 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 28069
mikeyg123 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
I find it really hard to evaluate any pre-Lauda drivers as I'd basically be going off 3rd party articles and I don't think that's fair to the rest. But my best attempts as follows, with no ranking within the tiers themselves:

Tier 1 - the standout driver of their eras
    Senna
    Schumacher
    Clark
    Alonso

Tier 2 - the best of the rest. Top drivers but not quite on the level of those above:
    Prost
    Piquet
    Hamilton
    Vettel
    Lauda

Tier 3 - drivers who were very good on their day but not quite up there with the best
    Hakkinen
    Hill
    Brabham
    Stewart
    Fittipaldi


I'm surprised with your rating of Stewart. He was definitely the best of his day.

yeah, any pre-1980 driver is a bit of a guess, really, as I put in my disclaimer. When I started watching I don't remember Stewart being talked about in the same way as Clark, for example, although of course he was good. Happy to be wrong on it, though

Stewart rated Clark higher than himself so you're not wrong, Stewart however should be higher than your tier 3.


I'd agree Clark was better but they didn't really race at the same time. Their careers only narrowly overlapped. Stewart was the best driver who raced in the 70s IMO.

Yes he very much took over from Clark.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 2nd

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 21, 2018 10:02 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 8:07 am
Posts: 1037
I'm only going to rank them the ones I've seen race

It's an important distinction to make, because with drivers I've seen I can look past the stats and be objective. Drivers from the past however I can only base my opinion on articles and stats.

So - of the ones I've seen race

Lewis Hamilton - 4
Alain Prost - 4
Fernando Alonso - 2
Michael Schumacher - 7
Mika Häkkinen - 2
Sebastian Vettel - 4

And here's why..

Schumacher is lower than most people might expect.This is because I feel his legacy doesn't acknowledge the significance of the following:

not particularly high benchmark teammates
teammates clearly contracted to be subservient
unprecedented reliability
"Pit Wall" support from great strategic planning and calls

This doesn't mean I don't rate Schu as a driver - you'd be an idiot not to frankly, but overall I do feel that the above played a huge part on his period of dominance. His skills behind the wheel still came through, but for me he was still he was still a piece of a puzzle where all pieces fell perfectly into place for an unusually long time.

The teammates factor is a big one. Always good to go up against another WDC

Prost went up against Lauda, Rosberg, Senna, Mansell and Hill (D)
Alonso; Villeneuve, Hamilton, Raikkonen & Button

Schu went up against a basically semi-retired Piquet and en emrging Rosberg who had the measure of him.



Vettel I struggle to justify why I still can't rate him, but I just don't and this is an opinion based list so I can put him where I want.

_________________
"I'd rather lose a race going fast enough to win it, than win one going slow enough to lose it".
-Stirling Moss


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 21, 2018 10:51 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 7364
Location: Belgium
Dolomite, did you forget about Senna? I only see him mentioned in relation to Prost. Surely you have an opinion about where he should stand.

Oh, and I didn't know Hill was a Democrat. :D

I'm still trying to come to a ranking, but I do think it will be difficult for anyone to top Prost. Part of the problem is rating Hamilton. I felt his pole position last weekend was Senna-esque, but I feel it is difficult to rate 'modern' drivers because of their reduced responsibility for race tactics. Too much is dictated from the pitwall.

I agree it is difficult to rate people we never saw race ourselves. I wouldn't know how to weigh Prost against Fangio. Or even where to rank my childhood hero Clark. Perhaps Clark is the most difficult of all, even after considering what Stewart said about him.

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 21, 2018 11:24 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 8:07 am
Posts: 1037
Fiki wrote:

Dolomite, did you forget about Senna? I only see him mentioned in relation to Prost. Surely you have an opinion about where he should stand.



I didn't, but I did forget to state why I didn't include him. I started watching F1 full time really from '92. Therefore I didn't really get to watch the majority of Senna's career. For the same reasons I should probably exclude Prost I guess.
If I had to add him to that list, he'd be top. The margin by which he could beat great drivers tells the story. I know there's a strong argument that Prost matched him , and you can pick stats to help with that, but the reality was that all things being equal i.e remove strategy and reliability, Senna would beat Prost over race distance 9 times out of 10. Prost countered that outright speed with more applied intelligence. Senna wanted to win, on the track, every race. Prost considered the bigger picture and it paid off in terms of gathering points and championships. Now you can argue that the ability to do that is very much part of being the "complete package " and it's a fair point.

If people want to say Prost was better, I've no issue with that and imo he's still generally underrated.


Hamilton is tricky, but as time goes on, we are seeing more and more examples of why he's up there - speed, racecraft, qualifying consistency, judgement, temperament. It's all there pretty much every weekend, whereas the other drivers will lack one of these on a more frequent basis, with the possible exception of Alonso. He is still and absolute animal week in week out, but the desperation is showing in the amount of incidents he's involved in now compared to his past.

_________________
"I'd rather lose a race going fast enough to win it, than win one going slow enough to lose it".
-Stirling Moss


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 21, 2018 12:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2017 7:05 pm
Posts: 259
Location: Dallas, TX, USA
So, I've decided to modify my Enzo Ferrari "What have you done for me lately?" stats only approach to this and rank the drivers, still within their tiers. And so you know, I watched all of these drivers throughout their careers, excepting only Ascari and Fangio.

Where you find some drivers rated higher than others, it is because of the length of the successful period within their careers, success achieved among multiple teams, and relative competitiveness of their respective period in the sport.

Tier 1 (Inter-Gallactic)
Michael Schumacher - 7
Lewis Hamilton - 4 (soon to be 5+)
Alain Prost - 4
Juan Manuel Fangio - 5
Sebastian Vettel - 4

Tier 2 (Just Gallactic)
Jackie Stewart - 3
Aryton Senna - 3
Niki Lauda - 3
Jack Brabham - 3
Nelson Piquet - 3

Tier 3 (Stellar)
Jim Clark - 2
Graham Hill - 2
Fernando Alonso - 2
Alberto Ascari - 2
Emerson Fittipaldi - 2
Mika Häkkinen - 2

And... I'll offer an "Honorable Mention" category for single year WDCs...
Kimi Raikkonen - 1
James Hunt - 1
Alan Jones - 1
John Surtees - 1
Phil Hill - 1

Attack...

_________________
Short-time member, Life-Long Fan from 1965 -- More than 550 Grand Prix recorded since 1982 (all but 3), and counting...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 21, 2018 1:15 pm 
Online

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 6456
DOLOMITE wrote:
I'm only going to rank them the ones I've seen race

It's an important distinction to make, because with drivers I've seen I can look past the stats and be objective. Drivers from the past however I can only base my opinion on articles and stats.

So - of the ones I've seen race

Lewis Hamilton - 4
Alain Prost - 4
Fernando Alonso - 2
Michael Schumacher - 7
Mika Häkkinen - 2
Sebastian Vettel - 4

And here's why..

Schumacher is lower than most people might expect.This is because I feel his legacy doesn't acknowledge the significance of the following:

not particularly high benchmark teammates
teammates clearly contracted to be subservient
unprecedented reliability
"Pit Wall" support from great strategic planning and calls

This doesn't mean I don't rate Schu as a driver - you'd be an idiot not to frankly, but overall I do feel that the above played a huge part on his period of dominance. His skills behind the wheel still came through, but for me he was still he was still a piece of a puzzle where all pieces fell perfectly into place for an unusually long time.

The teammates factor is a big one. Always good to go up against another WDC

Prost went up against Lauda, Rosberg, Senna, Mansell and Hill (D)
Alonso; Villeneuve, Hamilton, Raikkonen & Button

Schu went up against a basically semi-retired Piquet and en emrging Rosberg who had the measure of him.



Vettel I struggle to justify why I still can't rate him, but I just don't and this is an opinion based list so I can put him where I want.


Two things to consider Dolo;

The reliability is better nowadays than the Schumacher era. Hamilton currently has the record with 33 consecutive points finishes! I also think that you can't hold it against a driver if the team produces a great car. This is not for Schumacher only, it holds for any of the drivers above.

Secondly, if you are talking about subservient team mates, then surely Alonso takes the cake. Moving over for his team mate happened twice for Schumacher from memory. Overtaking in the pitlane, taking a penalty to promote him in the "clean side" or crashing in the race are far far worse in my opinion.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 21, 2018 2:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 14200
Siao7 wrote:
DOLOMITE wrote:
I'm only going to rank them the ones I've seen race

It's an important distinction to make, because with drivers I've seen I can look past the stats and be objective. Drivers from the past however I can only base my opinion on articles and stats.

So - of the ones I've seen race

Lewis Hamilton - 4
Alain Prost - 4
Fernando Alonso - 2
Michael Schumacher - 7
Mika Häkkinen - 2
Sebastian Vettel - 4

And here's why..

Schumacher is lower than most people might expect.This is because I feel his legacy doesn't acknowledge the significance of the following:

not particularly high benchmark teammates
teammates clearly contracted to be subservient
unprecedented reliability
"Pit Wall" support from great strategic planning and calls

This doesn't mean I don't rate Schu as a driver - you'd be an idiot not to frankly, but overall I do feel that the above played a huge part on his period of dominance. His skills behind the wheel still came through, but for me he was still he was still a piece of a puzzle where all pieces fell perfectly into place for an unusually long time.

The teammates factor is a big one. Always good to go up against another WDC

Prost went up against Lauda, Rosberg, Senna, Mansell and Hill (D)
Alonso; Villeneuve, Hamilton, Raikkonen & Button

Schu went up against a basically semi-retired Piquet and en emrging Rosberg who had the measure of him.



Vettel I struggle to justify why I still can't rate him, but I just don't and this is an opinion based list so I can put him where I want.


Two things to consider Dolo;

The reliability is better nowadays than the Schumacher era. Hamilton currently has the record with 33 consecutive points finishes! I also think that you can't hold it against a driver if the team produces a great car. This is not for Schumacher only, it holds for any of the drivers above.

Secondly, if you are talking about subservient team mates, then surely Alonso takes the cake. Moving over for his team mate happened twice for Schumacher from memory. Overtaking in the pitlane, taking a penalty to promote him in the "clean side" or crashing in the race are far far worse in my opinion.


It was different in those days. The spare car was solely setup for Schumacher so he could have two setups to chose between. He was able to do whatever testing he liked. His team mates were often treated like an after thought especially at Bennetton. Schumacher would never have had to pass his team mates in the pit lane. They'd have already moved aside by then.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 21, 2018 2:56 pm 
Online

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 6456
mikeyg123 wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
DOLOMITE wrote:
I'm only going to rank them the ones I've seen race

It's an important distinction to make, because with drivers I've seen I can look past the stats and be objective. Drivers from the past however I can only base my opinion on articles and stats.

So - of the ones I've seen race

Lewis Hamilton - 4
Alain Prost - 4
Fernando Alonso - 2
Michael Schumacher - 7
Mika Häkkinen - 2
Sebastian Vettel - 4

And here's why..

Schumacher is lower than most people might expect.This is because I feel his legacy doesn't acknowledge the significance of the following:

not particularly high benchmark teammates
teammates clearly contracted to be subservient
unprecedented reliability
"Pit Wall" support from great strategic planning and calls

This doesn't mean I don't rate Schu as a driver - you'd be an idiot not to frankly, but overall I do feel that the above played a huge part on his period of dominance. His skills behind the wheel still came through, but for me he was still he was still a piece of a puzzle where all pieces fell perfectly into place for an unusually long time.

The teammates factor is a big one. Always good to go up against another WDC

Prost went up against Lauda, Rosberg, Senna, Mansell and Hill (D)
Alonso; Villeneuve, Hamilton, Raikkonen & Button

Schu went up against a basically semi-retired Piquet and en emrging Rosberg who had the measure of him.



Vettel I struggle to justify why I still can't rate him, but I just don't and this is an opinion based list so I can put him where I want.


Two things to consider Dolo;

The reliability is better nowadays than the Schumacher era. Hamilton currently has the record with 33 consecutive points finishes! I also think that you can't hold it against a driver if the team produces a great car. This is not for Schumacher only, it holds for any of the drivers above.

Secondly, if you are talking about subservient team mates, then surely Alonso takes the cake. Moving over for his team mate happened twice for Schumacher from memory. Overtaking in the pitlane, taking a penalty to promote him in the "clean side" or crashing in the race are far far worse in my opinion.


It was different in those days. The spare car was solely setup for Schumacher so he could have two setups to chose between. He was able to do whatever testing he liked. His team mates were often treated like an after thought especially at Bennetton. Schumacher would never have had to pass his team mates in the pit lane. They'd have already moved aside by then.


The T-car was set up for him, that much is true. Though testing wasn't limited for the others, in fact they were preferred if we take Brawn's word on it. And I remember Schumacher moving for a team mate to pass him when out of contention. Anyway, I just thought I'd put it there for consideration, I don't want to start an argument


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 8:07 am
Posts: 1037
Siao7 wrote:
Two things to consider Dolo;

The reliability is better nowadays than the Schumacher era.

I mean the reliability Ferrari/Schu enjoyed across that period compared to other teams, not with the past

Siao7 wrote:
I also think that you can't hold it against a driver if the team produces a great car. This is not for Schumacher only, it holds for any of the drivers above.

I wasn't holding it against anyone - just saying that if a/team driver enjoys significantly better reliablity than another, that will show in the results.

Siao7 wrote:
Secondly, if you are talking about subservient team mates, then surely Alonso takes the cake.

Moving over for his team mate happened twice for Schumacher from memory.
Overtaking in the pitlane, taking a penalty to promote him in the "clean side" or crashing in the race are far far worse in my opinion.

Point is I never felt Barrichello or even Irvine were ever really racing Schu. Even on the rare days they appeared quicker, things would always fall Schu's way to ensure he finished in front.

_________________
"I'd rather lose a race going fast enough to win it, than win one going slow enough to lose it".
-Stirling Moss


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 21, 2018 5:14 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 5499
DOLOMITE wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
Two things to consider Dolo;

The reliability is better nowadays than the Schumacher era.

I mean the reliability Ferrari/Schu enjoyed across that period compared to other teams, not with the past

Siao7 wrote:
I also think that you can't hold it against a driver if the team produces a great car. This is not for Schumacher only, it holds for any of the drivers above.

I wasn't holding it against anyone - just saying that if a/team driver enjoys significantly better reliablity than another, that will show in the results.

Siao7 wrote:
Secondly, if you are talking about subservient team mates, then surely Alonso takes the cake.

Moving over for his team mate happened twice for Schumacher from memory.
Overtaking in the pitlane, taking a penalty to promote him in the "clean side" or crashing in the race are far far worse in my opinion.

Point is I never felt Barrichello or even Irvine were ever really racing Schu. Even on the rare days they appeared quicker, things would always fall Schu's way to ensure he finished in front.

They weren't. Other than his rookie year, the first time Michael actually had to compete with a teammate was Nico Rosberg when he was 41. That's why I don't rate Michael the same as some of the others. He literally never beat another great driver in identical machinery. Doesn't mean he couldn't have; he just never had to. The fact that Hamilton is closing in on his records after a career of sharing equal status with other WDCs like Alonso, Button and Rosberg speaks volumes.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 21, 2018 7:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2007 11:19 am
Posts: 965
Schumacher, gave Ferrari The glory back
Senna.
Alonso
Vettel, Hamilton, dominated 2 different eras, to be rated by me higher need to perhaps switch team or be The best in another era.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 21, 2018 7:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 5948
Location: Michigan, USA
Here's my best go and actually ordering all the multiple champions based on how highly I rate them as drivers, with the caveat that since I do in fact believe that every generation of drivers is better than the one that came before it this is my rating of how they compared to the competition they raced against. I believe that Nico Rosberg is probably out-and-out faster than any pre-Schumacher champion, but that doesn't mean he would have been in their own time.

So, with that out of the way:

1.1) Jim Clark - 2
1.2) Michael Schumacher - 7
1.3) Juan Manuel Fangio - 5
1.4) Lewis Hamilton - 4
1.5) Fernando Alonso - 2
1.6) Ayrton Senna - 3
1.7) Jackie Stewart - 3

2.1) Alain Prost - 4
2.2) Alberto Ascari - 2
2.3) Sebastian Vettel - 4
2.4) Niki Lauda - 3
2.5) Nelson Piquet - 3

3.1) Mika Häkkinen - 2
3.2) Graham Hill - 2
3.3) Emerson Fittipaldi - 2
3.4) Jack Brabham - 3

I feel a bit bad ranking Brabham all the way at the back, but as a driver I feel he simply doesn't compare with the other multi-time WDCs. As an engineer he's head and shoulders above the rest, which is why he won three titles.

At the top, it's the same top five I've held for some time, with the addition of Hamilton and Alonso. The top group is basically the era-defining drivers whom I feel are significantly faster than anyone else in their time: Alonso is also there because he's so close to Hamilton, and really I feel that the post-Schumacher, pre-Hamilton and Mercedes era belonged to Alonso and he simply doesn't have the trophies to show for it. The second tier are the drivers who were almost the best, but overshadowed by someone else from their time - or, in the case of Lauda, simply fit in between dominant drivers but did not (I feel) reach their level.

NOTE: If Stirling Moss was a multiple time WDC, I would rank him in the top group with Fangio, just like I've done for Alonso and Hamilton. I feel Moss was as close to Fangio as Alonso is to Hamilton, including that it's possible he was actually faster.

_________________
PF1 PICK 10 COMPETITION (4 wins, 14 podiums): 2017: 19th| 2016: 3rd| 2015: 4th
PF1 TOP THREE TEAM CHAMPIONSHIP (No Limit Excedrin Racing): 2017: 2nd| 2015: 1st
AUTOSPORT GP PREDICTOR: 2017 United States Champion! (world #2)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 21, 2018 10:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat May 26, 2012 2:04 pm
Posts: 2036
Siao7 wrote:
DOLOMITE wrote:
I'm only going to rank them the ones I've seen race

It's an important distinction to make, because with drivers I've seen I can look past the stats and be objective. Drivers from the past however I can only base my opinion on articles and stats.

So - of the ones I've seen race

Lewis Hamilton - 4
Alain Prost - 4
Fernando Alonso - 2
Michael Schumacher - 7
Mika Häkkinen - 2
Sebastian Vettel - 4

And here's why..

Schumacher is lower than most people might expect.This is because I feel his legacy doesn't acknowledge the significance of the following:

not particularly high benchmark teammates
teammates clearly contracted to be subservient
unprecedented reliability
"Pit Wall" support from great strategic planning and calls

This doesn't mean I don't rate Schu as a driver - you'd be an idiot not to frankly, but overall I do feel that the above played a huge part on his period of dominance. His skills behind the wheel still came through, but for me he was still he was still a piece of a puzzle where all pieces fell perfectly into place for an unusually long time.

The teammates factor is a big one. Always good to go up against another WDC

Prost went up against Lauda, Rosberg, Senna, Mansell and Hill (D)
Alonso; Villeneuve, Hamilton, Raikkonen & Button

Schu went up against a basically semi-retired Piquet and en emrging Rosberg who had the measure of him.



Vettel I struggle to justify why I still can't rate him, but I just don't and this is an opinion based list so I can put him where I want.


Two things to consider Dolo;

The reliability is better nowadays than the Schumacher era. Hamilton currently has the record with 33 consecutive points finishes! I also think that you can't hold it against a driver if the team produces a great car. This is not for Schumacher only, it holds for any of the drivers above.

Secondly, if you are talking about subservient team mates, then surely Alonso takes the cake. Moving over for his team mate happened twice for Schumacher from memory. Overtaking in the pitlane, taking a penalty to promote him in the "clean side" or crashing in the race are far far worse in my opinion.


How is overtaking into the pit entry TO or subservient teammate? It is actually hard racing!

And when had a teammate to move over for Alonso when the championship was as young and open as in the famous Austria race?

Alonso got number one status after he out-competed his teammates, Schumacher before he did that. That's the difference.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 21, 2018 11:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 10:02 am
Posts: 1369
Location: Far side of Koozebane
MB-BOB wrote:
So, I've decided to modify my Enzo Ferrari "What have you done for me lately?" stats only approach to this and rank the drivers, still within their tiers. And so you know, I watched all of these drivers throughout their careers, excepting only Ascari and Fangio.

Where you find some drivers rated higher than others, it is because of the length of the successful period within their careers, success achieved among multiple teams, and relative competitiveness of their respective period in the sport.

Tier 1 (Inter-Gallactic)
Michael Schumacher - 7
Lewis Hamilton - 4 (soon to be 5+)
Alain Prost - 4
Juan Manuel Fangio - 5
Sebastian Vettel - 4

Tier 2 (Just Gallactic)
Jackie Stewart - 3
Aryton Senna - 3
Niki Lauda - 3
Jack Brabham - 3
Nelson Piquet - 3

Tier 3 (Stellar)
Jim Clark - 2
Graham Hill - 2
Fernando Alonso - 2
Alberto Ascari - 2
Emerson Fittipaldi - 2
Mika Häkkinen - 2

And... I'll offer an "Honorable Mention" category for single year WDCs...
Kimi Raikkonen - 1
James Hunt - 1
Alan Jones - 1
John Surtees - 1
Phil Hill - 1

Attack...


All I can say is looking at honourable mention category on this list, I feel so sorry for the likes of Hawthorn, Scheckter, Mansell, The 2 Rosberg's, the 3rd Hill, the 2nd Villeneuve & poor old Mario Andretti.

DOLOMITE wrote:

Schumacher is lower than most people might expect.This is because I feel his legacy doesn't acknowledge the significance of the following:

not particularly high benchmark teammates
teammates clearly contracted to be subservient
unprecedented reliability
"Pit Wall" support from great strategic planning and calls

This doesn't mean I don't rate Schu as a driver - you'd be an idiot not to frankly, but overall I do feel that the above played a huge part on his period of dominance. His skills behind the wheel still came through, but for me he was still he was still a piece of a puzzle where all pieces fell perfectly into place for an unusually long time.

The teammates factor is a big one. Always good to go up against another WDC

Prost went up against Lauda, Rosberg, Senna, Mansell and Hill (D)
Alonso; Villeneuve, Hamilton, Raikkonen & Button

Schu went up against a basically semi-retired Piquet and en emrging Rosberg who had the measure of him.


Agree here 100%

I ranked Schumacher I think 7th on my list for those reasons.

_________________
Question: If a compulsive liar tells you they're a compulsive liar, are they really a compulsive liar?

2017 WCC CPTTC - Jalopy Racing (Herb & Me)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 24, 2018 8:36 am 
Online

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 6456
Paolo_Lasardi wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
DOLOMITE wrote:
I'm only going to rank them the ones I've seen race

It's an important distinction to make, because with drivers I've seen I can look past the stats and be objective. Drivers from the past however I can only base my opinion on articles and stats.

So - of the ones I've seen race

Lewis Hamilton - 4
Alain Prost - 4
Fernando Alonso - 2
Michael Schumacher - 7
Mika Häkkinen - 2
Sebastian Vettel - 4

And here's why..

Schumacher is lower than most people might expect.This is because I feel his legacy doesn't acknowledge the significance of the following:

not particularly high benchmark teammates
teammates clearly contracted to be subservient
unprecedented reliability
"Pit Wall" support from great strategic planning and calls

This doesn't mean I don't rate Schu as a driver - you'd be an idiot not to frankly, but overall I do feel that the above played a huge part on his period of dominance. His skills behind the wheel still came through, but for me he was still he was still a piece of a puzzle where all pieces fell perfectly into place for an unusually long time.

The teammates factor is a big one. Always good to go up against another WDC

Prost went up against Lauda, Rosberg, Senna, Mansell and Hill (D)
Alonso; Villeneuve, Hamilton, Raikkonen & Button

Schu went up against a basically semi-retired Piquet and en emrging Rosberg who had the measure of him.



Vettel I struggle to justify why I still can't rate him, but I just don't and this is an opinion based list so I can put him where I want.


Two things to consider Dolo;

The reliability is better nowadays than the Schumacher era. Hamilton currently has the record with 33 consecutive points finishes! I also think that you can't hold it against a driver if the team produces a great car. This is not for Schumacher only, it holds for any of the drivers above.

Secondly, if you are talking about subservient team mates, then surely Alonso takes the cake. Moving over for his team mate happened twice for Schumacher from memory. Overtaking in the pitlane, taking a penalty to promote him in the "clean side" or crashing in the race are far far worse in my opinion.


How is overtaking into the pit entry TO or subservient teammate? It is actually hard racing!

And when had a teammate to move over for Alonso when the championship was as young and open as in the famous Austria race?

Alonso got number one status after he out-competed his teammates, Schumacher before he did that. That's the difference.


You do realise that pit order is down to strategy etc.? They would have the wrong tyres out for start. Massa took it to the chin without saying a word.

As for the last sentence, pretty big claim. Brawn and others have claimed that if Schumacher had preferential treatment is because he earned it. He was outright so much faster than his team mates. Since we have no insight in his contract (Irvine I think has said that there was no terms in their contracts as for N1 or 2) then I personally think this claim is a bit rich. We only have one driver's contract on record asking for preferential treatment, Senna's.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 24, 2018 8:48 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2015 9:33 pm
Posts: 1893
Siao7 wrote:
Paolo_Lasardi wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
DOLOMITE wrote:
I'm only going to rank them the ones I've seen race

It's an important distinction to make, because with drivers I've seen I can look past the stats and be objective. Drivers from the past however I can only base my opinion on articles and stats.

So - of the ones I've seen race

Lewis Hamilton - 4
Alain Prost - 4
Fernando Alonso - 2
Michael Schumacher - 7
Mika Häkkinen - 2
Sebastian Vettel - 4

And here's why..

Schumacher is lower than most people might expect.This is because I feel his legacy doesn't acknowledge the significance of the following:

not particularly high benchmark teammates
teammates clearly contracted to be subservient
unprecedented reliability
"Pit Wall" support from great strategic planning and calls

This doesn't mean I don't rate Schu as a driver - you'd be an idiot not to frankly, but overall I do feel that the above played a huge part on his period of dominance. His skills behind the wheel still came through, but for me he was still he was still a piece of a puzzle where all pieces fell perfectly into place for an unusually long time.

The teammates factor is a big one. Always good to go up against another WDC

Prost went up against Lauda, Rosberg, Senna, Mansell and Hill (D)
Alonso; Villeneuve, Hamilton, Raikkonen & Button

Schu went up against a basically semi-retired Piquet and en emrging Rosberg who had the measure of him.



Vettel I struggle to justify why I still can't rate him, but I just don't and this is an opinion based list so I can put him where I want.


Two things to consider Dolo;

The reliability is better nowadays than the Schumacher era. Hamilton currently has the record with 33 consecutive points finishes! I also think that you can't hold it against a driver if the team produces a great car. This is not for Schumacher only, it holds for any of the drivers above.

Secondly, if you are talking about subservient team mates, then surely Alonso takes the cake. Moving over for his team mate happened twice for Schumacher from memory. Overtaking in the pitlane, taking a penalty to promote him in the "clean side" or crashing in the race are far far worse in my opinion.


How is overtaking into the pit entry TO or subservient teammate? It is actually hard racing!

And when had a teammate to move over for Alonso when the championship was as young and open as in the famous Austria race?

Alonso got number one status after he out-competed his teammates, Schumacher before he did that. That's the difference.


You do realise that pit order is down to strategy etc.? They would have the wrong tyres out for start. Massa took it to the chin without saying a word.

As for the last sentence, pretty big claim. Brawn and others have claimed that if Schumacher had preferential treatment is because he earned it. He was outright so much faster than his team mates. Since we have no insight in his contract (Irvine I think has said that there was no terms in their contracts as for N1 or 2) then I personally think this claim is a bit rich. We only have one driver's contract on record asking for preferential treatment, Senna's.


Yeh Eddie did say that. He has also said though that despite Schumacher being able to do things in the car that he or nobody else could do that still the team was very highly focused on Schumacher to the extent that he basically was a definitive #1 driver. Earned, through his dominance over his team-mate. Eddie makes no bones about how brilliant Schumacher was but there were apparently some brutish tactics. For example, after Irvine qualified ahead of Schumacher at AUS 1996, he wasn't allowed to test the car again for the rest of the year. Irvine felt he was as good as anyone else on the grid other than Mika who was a bit better and then Michael who blows everyone out the water.

It was a snowball effect then. Schumacher was so blatantly superior and that snowballed into almost any and every possible advantage in operations going his way. Amazingly, Irvine is not bitter over the happenings of the 1999 season and would have made the same decision regarding the very early development into the 2000 car in the aftermath of Schumacher's accident were he in the same position of management.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 24, 2018 8:50 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23910
Siao7 wrote:
Paolo_Lasardi wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
DOLOMITE wrote:
I'm only going to rank them the ones I've seen race

It's an important distinction to make, because with drivers I've seen I can look past the stats and be objective. Drivers from the past however I can only base my opinion on articles and stats.

So - of the ones I've seen race

Lewis Hamilton - 4
Alain Prost - 4
Fernando Alonso - 2
Michael Schumacher - 7
Mika Häkkinen - 2
Sebastian Vettel - 4

And here's why..

Schumacher is lower than most people might expect.This is because I feel his legacy doesn't acknowledge the significance of the following:

not particularly high benchmark teammates
teammates clearly contracted to be subservient
unprecedented reliability
"Pit Wall" support from great strategic planning and calls

This doesn't mean I don't rate Schu as a driver - you'd be an idiot not to frankly, but overall I do feel that the above played a huge part on his period of dominance. His skills behind the wheel still came through, but for me he was still he was still a piece of a puzzle where all pieces fell perfectly into place for an unusually long time.

The teammates factor is a big one. Always good to go up against another WDC

Prost went up against Lauda, Rosberg, Senna, Mansell and Hill (D)
Alonso; Villeneuve, Hamilton, Raikkonen & Button

Schu went up against a basically semi-retired Piquet and en emrging Rosberg who had the measure of him.



Vettel I struggle to justify why I still can't rate him, but I just don't and this is an opinion based list so I can put him where I want.


Two things to consider Dolo;

The reliability is better nowadays than the Schumacher era. Hamilton currently has the record with 33 consecutive points finishes! I also think that you can't hold it against a driver if the team produces a great car. This is not for Schumacher only, it holds for any of the drivers above.

Secondly, if you are talking about subservient team mates, then surely Alonso takes the cake. Moving over for his team mate happened twice for Schumacher from memory. Overtaking in the pitlane, taking a penalty to promote him in the "clean side" or crashing in the race are far far worse in my opinion.


How is overtaking into the pit entry TO or subservient teammate? It is actually hard racing!

And when had a teammate to move over for Alonso when the championship was as young and open as in the famous Austria race?

Alonso got number one status after he out-competed his teammates, Schumacher before he did that. That's the difference.


You do realise that pit order is down to strategy etc.? They would have the wrong tyres out for start. Massa took it to the chin without saying a word.

As for the last sentence, pretty big claim. Brawn and others have claimed that if Schumacher had preferential treatment is because he earned it. He was outright so much faster than his team mates. Since we have no insight in his contract (Irvine I think has said that there was no terms in their contracts as for N1 or 2) then I personally think this claim is a bit rich. We only have one driver's contract on record asking for preferential treatment, Senna's.

Yes, it's often overlooked that Ferrari building their team around Schumacher was basically down to the fact that he had already shown himself to be the best driver on the grid. From the moment he burst on the scene there was a tug of war over his services, while beating Piquet wasn't without merit, either - Piquet had won Canada that year and the last two races of the previous year, so was still a formidable opponent. In Schumacher's first full year he came 3rd in the WDC, beating Senna in the process, and the two cars in front of him were utterly dominant anyway. He was only 3 points behind Patrese, who was driving a far superior car, while he got more than double Patrese's points when he partnered him the following year. Schumacher was a fantastic driver right from the start and earned his number one status against some pretty tough opposition.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 24, 2018 8:52 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2015 9:33 pm
Posts: 1893
Irvine more or less stated that unless you were driving a Newey car or your name was Michael Schumacher, you weren't going to be winning the WDC, and so the decision that was in the best interests of Michael had to be made.

To me, it's quite obvious that Schumacher's talent was in the same ballpark as Senna.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 24, 2018 8:58 am 
Online

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 6456
DOLOMITE wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
Two things to consider Dolo;

The reliability is better nowadays than the Schumacher era.

I mean the reliability Ferrari/Schu enjoyed across that period compared to other teams, not with the past

Siao7 wrote:
I also think that you can't hold it against a driver if the team produces a great car. This is not for Schumacher only, it holds for any of the drivers above.

I wasn't holding it against anyone - just saying that if a/team driver enjoys significantly better reliablity than another, that will show in the results.

Siao7 wrote:
Secondly, if you are talking about subservient team mates, then surely Alonso takes the cake.

Moving over for his team mate happened twice for Schumacher from memory.
Overtaking in the pitlane, taking a penalty to promote him in the "clean side" or crashing in the race are far far worse in my opinion.

Point is I never felt Barrichello or even Irvine were ever really racing Schu. Even on the rare days they appeared quicker, things would always fall Schu's way to ensure he finished in front.


Hi Dolo, thanks for the replies. I don't think that reliability was better than what other teams like Mercedes enjoyed recently against their peers. I haven't checked the numbers, but nothing sticks out from memory as an anomaly.

I am not sure, both Irvine and Barrichello have beaten Schumacher in races. They were good drivers in their day and as good as Schumacher was, he also had off days like any other driver. I normally put Rubens (especially) in the same bracket as Webber, Ralf and Montoya, very good drivers that in their day they would be fantastic. It just happened that this day was twice a year, they lacked duration. The Austria thing happened twice and because of the stupidity of that move it tends to stick as a negative thing. It is also important to remember how these orders came. On the back of three years that they lost the WDC very close in the last rounds. Ferrari wanted to maximise their points tally and as stupid as it sounds in hindsight, it is their call. They were far ahead in that season, but we've seen a team picking up performance after their upgrade mid-season before, like Williams in '94.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 24, 2018 9:06 am 
Online

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 6456
Invade wrote:
Irvine more or less stated that unless you were driving a Newey car or your name was Michael Schumacher, you weren't going to be winning the WDC, and so the decision that was in the best interests of Michael had to be made.

To me, it's quite obvious that Schumacher's talent was in the same ballpark as Senna.


This is true, but this is what happens in every sport; the biggest stars get their ego's massaged and everyone bends over backwards to accommodate them. I can't blame Senna for putting preferential treatment in his contract nor any other driver that wants to secure his best chance to get the best drive. It is what they do from the very first era of F1. People get so hang up with Schumacher that they forget what all the other drivers in the past have done. Patrick O'B wrote an article of how other top drivers in the past have won races by taking their team mate's car, being pushed by the crowd back in the race, getting the only wet tyre in the grid, etc., but you never see Fangio nor Steward getting the negativity that Schumacher got.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 24, 2018 9:09 am 
Online

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 6456
Zoue wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
Paolo_Lasardi wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
DOLOMITE wrote:
I'm only going to rank them the ones I've seen race

It's an important distinction to make, because with drivers I've seen I can look past the stats and be objective. Drivers from the past however I can only base my opinion on articles and stats.

So - of the ones I've seen race

Lewis Hamilton - 4
Alain Prost - 4
Fernando Alonso - 2
Michael Schumacher - 7
Mika Häkkinen - 2
Sebastian Vettel - 4

And here's why..

Schumacher is lower than most people might expect.This is because I feel his legacy doesn't acknowledge the significance of the following:

not particularly high benchmark teammates
teammates clearly contracted to be subservient
unprecedented reliability
"Pit Wall" support from great strategic planning and calls

This doesn't mean I don't rate Schu as a driver - you'd be an idiot not to frankly, but overall I do feel that the above played a huge part on his period of dominance. His skills behind the wheel still came through, but for me he was still he was still a piece of a puzzle where all pieces fell perfectly into place for an unusually long time.

The teammates factor is a big one. Always good to go up against another WDC

Prost went up against Lauda, Rosberg, Senna, Mansell and Hill (D)
Alonso; Villeneuve, Hamilton, Raikkonen & Button

Schu went up against a basically semi-retired Piquet and en emrging Rosberg who had the measure of him.



Vettel I struggle to justify why I still can't rate him, but I just don't and this is an opinion based list so I can put him where I want.


Two things to consider Dolo;

The reliability is better nowadays than the Schumacher era. Hamilton currently has the record with 33 consecutive points finishes! I also think that you can't hold it against a driver if the team produces a great car. This is not for Schumacher only, it holds for any of the drivers above.

Secondly, if you are talking about subservient team mates, then surely Alonso takes the cake. Moving over for his team mate happened twice for Schumacher from memory. Overtaking in the pitlane, taking a penalty to promote him in the "clean side" or crashing in the race are far far worse in my opinion.


How is overtaking into the pit entry TO or subservient teammate? It is actually hard racing!

And when had a teammate to move over for Alonso when the championship was as young and open as in the famous Austria race?

Alonso got number one status after he out-competed his teammates, Schumacher before he did that. That's the difference.


You do realise that pit order is down to strategy etc.? They would have the wrong tyres out for start. Massa took it to the chin without saying a word.

As for the last sentence, pretty big claim. Brawn and others have claimed that if Schumacher had preferential treatment is because he earned it. He was outright so much faster than his team mates. Since we have no insight in his contract (Irvine I think has said that there was no terms in their contracts as for N1 or 2) then I personally think this claim is a bit rich. We only have one driver's contract on record asking for preferential treatment, Senna's.

Yes, it's often overlooked that Ferrari building their team around Schumacher was basically down to the fact that he had already shown himself to be the best driver on the grid. From the moment he burst on the scene there was a tug of war over his services, while beating Piquet wasn't without merit, either - Piquet had won Canada that year and the last two races of the previous year, so was still a formidable opponent. In Schumacher's first full year he came 3rd in the WDC, beating Senna in the process, and the two cars in front of him were utterly dominant anyway. He was only 3 points behind Patrese, who was driving a far superior car, while he got more than double Patrese's points when he partnered him the following year. Schumacher was a fantastic driver right from the start and earned his number one status against some pretty tough opposition.


We see it today as well, RB slowly rallying around Max and pretty much forcing another excellent driver out of the team. I can't blame Max for that, just wishing his future team mate good luck! I do not agree with contractual terms for preference personally, but if a team decide for whatever reason to back one driver as he is their best chance, then it's their choice I guess


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 24, 2018 9:26 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 7364
Location: Belgium
Paolo_Lasardi wrote:
How is overtaking into the pit entry TO or subservient teammate? It is actually hard racing!
It is neither a case of team orders, nor of having a subservient team-mate. We don't know whether this was discussed at a post-race debrief, so it is hard to comment. But risking taking both of your cars out by overtaking your team-mate in the pit entrance certainly warrented a word or two.
I felt the whole matter was rather an example of Race Control/Steward inaction, in that Alonso's overtake on Massa in the pitlane was made off-track. At the very least it should have been notified to the stewards, and a penalty applied, or race control should have made Alonso give the place back. But for me, the safety aspect of racing in the pitlane entry was the most important issue.

Siao7 wrote:
People get so hang up with Schumacher that they forget what all the other drivers in the past have done. Patrick O'B wrote an article of how other top drivers in the past have won races by taking their team mate's car, being pushed by the crowd back in the race, getting the only wet tyre in the grid, etc., but you never see Fangio nor Steward getting the negativity that Schumacher got.
Perhaps the circumstances surrounding those other cases explain why Shumacher did get the negativity, and Fangio and Stewart didn't. Twice trying to win a championship by ramming your opponent does explain the negativity in Schumacher's case. And why I don't even try to rate him, other than saying he must have been one of the best drivers F1 has seen, and that it is a shame he didn't simply rely on his driving and management skills to win races and titles.I believe he could have become the near-perfect combination of Prost and Senna.

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 24, 2018 9:38 am 
Online

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 6456
Fiki wrote:
Paolo_Lasardi wrote:
How is overtaking into the pit entry TO or subservient teammate? It is actually hard racing!
It is neither a case of team orders, nor of having a subservient team-mate. We don't know whether this was discussed at a post-race debrief, so it is hard to comment. But risking taking both of your cars out by overtaking your team-mate in the pit entrance certainly warrented a word or two.
I felt the whole matter was rather an example of Race Control/Steward inaction, in that Alonso's overtake on Massa in the pitlane was made off-track. At the very least it should have been notified to the stewards, and a penalty applied, or race control should have made Alonso give the place back. But for me, the safety aspect of racing in the pitlane entry was the most important issue.

Siao7 wrote:
People get so hang up with Schumacher that they forget what all the other drivers in the past have done. Patrick O'B wrote an article of how other top drivers in the past have won races by taking their team mate's car, being pushed by the crowd back in the race, getting the only wet tyre in the grid, etc., but you never see Fangio nor Steward getting the negativity that Schumacher got.
Perhaps the circumstances surrounding those other cases explain why Shumacher did get the negativity, and Fangio and Stewart didn't. Twice trying to win a championship by ramming your opponent does explain the negativity in Schumacher's case. And why I don't even try to rate him, other than saying he must have been one of the best drivers F1 has seen, and that it is a shame he didn't simply rely on his driving and management skills to win races and titles.I believe he could have become the near-perfect combination of Prost and Senna.


Agreed that he had the dubious moves in the past. But dismissing his whole career and not rating him for that is at least naive


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 24, 2018 10:26 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 7364
Location: Belgium
Siao7 wrote:
Fiki wrote:
Paolo_Lasardi wrote:
How is overtaking into the pit entry TO or subservient teammate? It is actually hard racing!
It is neither a case of team orders, nor of having a subservient team-mate. We don't know whether this was discussed at a post-race debrief, so it is hard to comment. But risking taking both of your cars out by overtaking your team-mate in the pit entrance certainly warrented a word or two.
I felt the whole matter was rather an example of Race Control/Steward inaction, in that Alonso's overtake on Massa in the pitlane was made off-track. At the very least it should have been notified to the stewards, and a penalty applied, or race control should have made Alonso give the place back. But for me, the safety aspect of racing in the pitlane entry was the most important issue.

Siao7 wrote:
People get so hang up with Schumacher that they forget what all the other drivers in the past have done. Patrick O'B wrote an article of how other top drivers in the past have won races by taking their team mate's car, being pushed by the crowd back in the race, getting the only wet tyre in the grid, etc., but you never see Fangio nor Steward getting the negativity that Schumacher got.
Perhaps the circumstances surrounding those other cases explain why Shumacher did get the negativity, and Fangio and Stewart didn't. Twice trying to win a championship by ramming your opponent does explain the negativity in Schumacher's case. And why I don't even try to rate him, other than saying he must have been one of the best drivers F1 has seen, and that it is a shame he didn't simply rely on his driving and management skills to win races and titles.I believe he could have become the near-perfect combination of Prost and Senna.


Agreed that he had the dubious moves in the past. But dismissing his whole career and not rating him for that is at least naive
Call it categoric and I would agree, at least when we discuss the negativety - which is different to dismissing a career. But I find it impossible to use the word dubious when discussing certain Schumacher moves, such as those used to remove Hill and Villeneuve from the track.
How does one rate a champion who is willing to do that twice in the space of 4 F1 seasons? I find it very difficult to even start. I can rate him as a driver, but I'm not sure that's what the OP is asking us to do. And I would have to start by pointing out he didn't win 7 titles in the first place, which means including Damon Hill as a multi-title champion.

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 24, 2018 11:08 am 
Online

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 6456
Fiki wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
Fiki wrote:
Paolo_Lasardi wrote:
How is overtaking into the pit entry TO or subservient teammate? It is actually hard racing!
It is neither a case of team orders, nor of having a subservient team-mate. We don't know whether this was discussed at a post-race debrief, so it is hard to comment. But risking taking both of your cars out by overtaking your team-mate in the pit entrance certainly warrented a word or two.
I felt the whole matter was rather an example of Race Control/Steward inaction, in that Alonso's overtake on Massa in the pitlane was made off-track. At the very least it should have been notified to the stewards, and a penalty applied, or race control should have made Alonso give the place back. But for me, the safety aspect of racing in the pitlane entry was the most important issue.

Siao7 wrote:
People get so hang up with Schumacher that they forget what all the other drivers in the past have done. Patrick O'B wrote an article of how other top drivers in the past have won races by taking their team mate's car, being pushed by the crowd back in the race, getting the only wet tyre in the grid, etc., but you never see Fangio nor Steward getting the negativity that Schumacher got.


Perhaps the circumstances surrounding those other cases explain why Shumacher did get the negativity, and Fangio and Stewart didn't. Twice trying to win a championship by ramming your opponent does explain the negativity in Schumacher's case. And why I don't even try to rate him, other than saying he must have been one of the best drivers F1 has seen, and that it is a shame he didn't simply rely on his driving and management skills to win races and titles. I believe he could have become the near-perfect combination of Prost and Senna.


Agreed that he had the dubious moves in the past. But dismissing his whole career and not rating him for that is at least naive
Call it categoric and I would agree, at least when we discuss the negativety - which is different to dismissing a career. But I find it impossible to use the word dubious when discussing certain Schumacher moves, such as those used to remove Hill and Villeneuve from the track.
How does one rate a champion who is willing to do that twice in the space of 4 F1 seasons? I find it very difficult to even start. I can rate him as a driver, but I'm not sure that's what the OP is asking us to do. And I would have to start by pointing out he didn't win 7 titles in the first place, which means including Damon Hill as a multi-title champion.


And you'd be wrong as always. But anyway, is it the terminology that bothered you? Call it what you want. So let's see then, Prost rammed Senna, Senna rammed Prost, Schumacher rammed JV, Vettel rammed Hamilton, Fangio accepted help from the crowd, Steward took unfair advantage through tyres, Hamilton lied about a fellow driver, Alonso blackmailed his boss, the list goes on... Is this how you want to rate the drivers' skills? Go ahead, I'll have a different view for sure


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 24, 2018 11:19 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 28069
Siao7 wrote:
Paolo_Lasardi wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
DOLOMITE wrote:
I'm only going to rank them the ones I've seen race

It's an important distinction to make, because with drivers I've seen I can look past the stats and be objective. Drivers from the past however I can only base my opinion on articles and stats.

So - of the ones I've seen race

Lewis Hamilton - 4
Alain Prost - 4
Fernando Alonso - 2
Michael Schumacher - 7
Mika Häkkinen - 2
Sebastian Vettel - 4

And here's why..

Schumacher is lower than most people might expect.This is because I feel his legacy doesn't acknowledge the significance of the following:

not particularly high benchmark teammates
teammates clearly contracted to be subservient
unprecedented reliability
"Pit Wall" support from great strategic planning and calls

This doesn't mean I don't rate Schu as a driver - you'd be an idiot not to frankly, but overall I do feel that the above played a huge part on his period of dominance. His skills behind the wheel still came through, but for me he was still he was still a piece of a puzzle where all pieces fell perfectly into place for an unusually long time.

The teammates factor is a big one. Always good to go up against another WDC

Prost went up against Lauda, Rosberg, Senna, Mansell and Hill (D)
Alonso; Villeneuve, Hamilton, Raikkonen & Button

Schu went up against a basically semi-retired Piquet and en emrging Rosberg who had the measure of him.



Vettel I struggle to justify why I still can't rate him, but I just don't and this is an opinion based list so I can put him where I want.


Two things to consider Dolo;

The reliability is better nowadays than the Schumacher era. Hamilton currently has the record with 33 consecutive points finishes! I also think that you can't hold it against a driver if the team produces a great car. This is not for Schumacher only, it holds for any of the drivers above.

Secondly, if you are talking about subservient team mates, then surely Alonso takes the cake. Moving over for his team mate happened twice for Schumacher from memory. Overtaking in the pitlane, taking a penalty to promote him in the "clean side" or crashing in the race are far far worse in my opinion.


How is overtaking into the pit entry TO or subservient teammate? It is actually hard racing!

And when had a teammate to move over for Alonso when the championship was as young and open as in the famous Austria race?

Alonso got number one status after he out-competed his teammates, Schumacher before he did that. That's the difference.


You do realise that pit order is down to strategy etc.? They would have the wrong tyres out for start. Massa took it to the chin without saying a word.

As for the last sentence, pretty big claim. Brawn and others have claimed that if Schumacher had preferential treatment is because he earned it. He was outright so much faster than his team mates. Since we have no insight in his contract (Irvine I think has said that there was no terms in their contracts as for N1 or 2) then I personally think this claim is a bit rich. We only have one driver's contract on record asking for preferential treatment, Senna's.

I remember team orders being given to Barrichello as early as race 4/6?

A driver doesn't normally earn that privilege that early in the season.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 2nd

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 24, 2018 11:28 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 28069
Siao7 wrote:
Invade wrote:
Irvine more or less stated that unless you were driving a Newey car or your name was Michael Schumacher, you weren't going to be winning the WDC, and so the decision that was in the best interests of Michael had to be made.

To me, it's quite obvious that Schumacher's talent was in the same ballpark as Senna.


This is true, but this is what happens in every sport; the biggest stars get their ego's massaged and everyone bends over backwards to accommodate them. I can't blame Senna for putting preferential treatment in his contract nor any other driver that wants to secure his best chance to get the best drive. It is what they do from the very first era of F1. People get so hang up with Schumacher that they forget what all the other drivers in the past have done. Patrick O'B wrote an article of how other top drivers in the past have won races by taking their team mate's car, being pushed by the crowd back in the race, getting the only wet tyre in the grid, etc., but you never see Fangio nor Steward getting the negativity that Schumacher got.

I would like to have a source for Senna's alleged preferential treatment, this seems a bit of a throwaway comment, he might have had it over someone like Johnny Dumfries while he was at Lotus but this is kind of putting it out there that he had it during his title years?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 2nd

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 24, 2018 11:58 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 10:02 am
Posts: 1369
Location: Far side of Koozebane
pokerman wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
Invade wrote:
Irvine more or less stated that unless you were driving a Newey car or your name was Michael Schumacher, you weren't going to be winning the WDC, and so the decision that was in the best interests of Michael had to be made.

To me, it's quite obvious that Schumacher's talent was in the same ballpark as Senna.


This is true, but this is what happens in every sport; the biggest stars get their ego's massaged and everyone bends over backwards to accommodate them. I can't blame Senna for putting preferential treatment in his contract nor any other driver that wants to secure his best chance to get the best drive. It is what they do from the very first era of F1. People get so hang up with Schumacher that they forget what all the other drivers in the past have done. Patrick O'B wrote an article of how other top drivers in the past have won races by taking their team mate's car, being pushed by the crowd back in the race, getting the only wet tyre in the grid, etc., but you never see Fangio nor Steward getting the negativity that Schumacher got.

I would like to have a source for Senna's alleged preferential treatment, this seems a bit of a throwaway comment, he might have had it over someone like Johnny Dumfries while he was at Lotus but this is kind of putting it out there that he had it during his title years?


Yeah the only time I can recall Senna getting "preferential treatment" was when he nixed Derek Warwick joining Lotus in 86 but that was not because he was worried about facing Warwick but because he felt Lotus wasn't strong enough to support 2 top line drivers, hence the arrival of Dumfries.

I remember reading the British press vilified Senna for blocking Warwick but years later it was pretty much accepted that Senna was right in his conclusion

_________________
Question: If a compulsive liar tells you they're a compulsive liar, are they really a compulsive liar?

2017 WCC CPTTC - Jalopy Racing (Herb & Me)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 24, 2018 12:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 7364
Location: Belgium
Siao7 wrote:
Fiki wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
Fiki wrote:
Paolo_Lasardi wrote:
How is overtaking into the pit entry TO or subservient teammate? It is actually hard racing!
It is neither a case of team orders, nor of having a subservient team-mate. We don't know whether this was discussed at a post-race debrief, so it is hard to comment. But risking taking both of your cars out by overtaking your team-mate in the pit entrance certainly warrented a word or two.
I felt the whole matter was rather an example of Race Control/Steward inaction, in that Alonso's overtake on Massa in the pitlane was made off-track. At the very least it should have been notified to the stewards, and a penalty applied, or race control should have made Alonso give the place back. But for me, the safety aspect of racing in the pitlane entry was the most important issue.

Siao7 wrote:
People get so hang up with Schumacher that they forget what all the other drivers in the past have done. Patrick O'B wrote an article of how other top drivers in the past have won races by taking their team mate's car, being pushed by the crowd back in the race, getting the only wet tyre in the grid, etc., but you never see Fangio nor Steward getting the negativity that Schumacher got.


Perhaps the circumstances surrounding those other cases explain why Shumacher did get the negativity, and Fangio and Stewart didn't. Twice trying to win a championship by ramming your opponent does explain the negativity in Schumacher's case. And why I don't even try to rate him, other than saying he must have been one of the best drivers F1 has seen, and that it is a shame he didn't simply rely on his driving and management skills to win races and titles. I believe he could have become the near-perfect combination of Prost and Senna.


Agreed that he had the dubious moves in the past. But dismissing his whole career and not rating him for that is at least naive
Call it categoric and I would agree, at least when we discuss the negativety - which is different to dismissing a career. But I find it impossible to use the word dubious when discussing certain Schumacher moves, such as those used to remove Hill and Villeneuve from the track.
How does one rate a champion who is willing to do that twice in the space of 4 F1 seasons? I find it very difficult to even start. I can rate him as a driver, but I'm not sure that's what the OP is asking us to do. And I would have to start by pointing out he didn't win 7 titles in the first place, which means including Damon Hill as a multi-title champion.


And you'd be wrong as always. But anyway, is it the terminology that bothered you? Call it what you want. So let's see then, Prost rammed Senna, Senna rammed Prost, Schumacher rammed JV, Vettel rammed Hamilton, Fangio accepted help from the crowd, Steward took unfair advantage through tyres, Hamilton lied about a fellow driver, Alonso blackmailed his boss, the list goes on... Is this how you want to rate the drivers' skills? Go ahead, I'll have a different view for sure
Terminology is important. Calling what Schumacher did to Hill and Villeneuve dubious, opens the door to throwing out the notion of sport from the industry that is F1. We have discussed those two cases here many times before, but so far nobody has offered me a way of looking at Schumacher's actions that I found convincing. Very often these days, we demand more consistency in stewarding decisions, while at the same time criticising them for stifling "racing". I believe much of the present confusion about the rules and how to interpret and police them stems from FIA cowardice at that time. Feel free to include 1989 and 1990 in that.

If you were to push me to for a beginning of rating as drivers, I still believe that Senna was the fastest driver at the time of his death. And I think he is the fastest driver I have ever seen in action myself. Titles don't mean everything, which makes it easier for me to say I rate Prost (with 3 titles if you so wish) higher than Schumacher (with 6). But I have no idea where to put all the others in a ranking.

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 24, 2018 12:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 7364
Location: Belgium
Jezza13 wrote:
Yeah the only time I can recall Senna getting "preferential treatment" was when he nixed Derek Warwick joining Lotus in 86 but that was not because he was worried about facing Warwick but because he felt Lotus wasn't strong enough to support 2 top line drivers, hence the arrival of Dumfries.

I remember reading the British press vilified Senna for blocking Warwick but years later it was pretty much accepted that Senna was right in his conclusion
If you remember that, you might also remember de Angelis complaining about the way Lotus treated him in 1985, having finished 3rd in the previous year's championship, effectively cold shouldering him into joining Brabham.

Lotus may have been too small to field two number 1 drivers. But how would Senna have been able to assess that, after only 1 year in F1?

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi


Last edited by Fiki on Mon Sep 24, 2018 4:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 24, 2018 12:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 28069
Fiki wrote:
Jezza13 wrote:
Yeah the only time I can recall Senna getting "preferential treatment" was when he nixed Derek Warwick joining Lotus in 86 but that was not because he was worried about facing Warwick but because he felt Lotus wasn't strong enough to support 2 top line drivers, hence the arrival of Dumfries.

I remember reading the British press vilified Senna for blocking Warwick but years later it was pretty much accepted that Senna was right in his conclusion
If you remember that, you might also remember de Angelis complaining about the way Lotus treated him in 1985, having finished 3rd in the previous year's championship, effectively cold shouldering him into joining Brabham.

Lotus may have been too small to field two number 1 drivers. But how would Senna have been able to donkeys that, after only 1 year in F1?

Maybe because he was better than de Angelis?

Anyway was Senna given a better car than de Angelis, was de Angelis not allowed to race against Senna?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 2nd

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 24, 2018 12:37 pm 
Online

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 6456
pokerman wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
Invade wrote:
Irvine more or less stated that unless you were driving a Newey car or your name was Michael Schumacher, you weren't going to be winning the WDC, and so the decision that was in the best interests of Michael had to be made.

To me, it's quite obvious that Schumacher's talent was in the same ballpark as Senna.


This is true, but this is what happens in every sport; the biggest stars get their ego's massaged and everyone bends over backwards to accommodate them. I can't blame Senna for putting preferential treatment in his contract nor any other driver that wants to secure his best chance to get the best drive. It is what they do from the very first era of F1. People get so hang up with Schumacher that they forget what all the other drivers in the past have done. Patrick O'B wrote an article of how other top drivers in the past have won races by taking their team mate's car, being pushed by the crowd back in the race, getting the only wet tyre in the grid, etc., but you never see Fangio nor Steward getting the negativity that Schumacher got.

I would like to have a source for Senna's alleged preferential treatment, this seems a bit of a throwaway comment, he might have had it over someone like Johnny Dumfries while he was at Lotus but this is kind of putting it out there that he had it during his title years?


Article 4.3:

https://www.industrydocumentslibrary.uc ... d=zmkb0190

I also never said he had it in all his WDC years, unless you can point it out?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 24, 2018 12:41 pm 
Online

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 6456
Fiki wrote:
Terminology is important. Calling what Schumacher did to Hill and Villeneuve dubious, opens the door to throwing out the notion of sport from the industry that is F1. We have discussed those two cases here many times before, but so far nobody has offered me a way of looking at Schumacher's actions that I found convincing. Very often these days, we demand more consistency in stewarding decisions, while at the same time criticising them for stifling "racing". I believe much of the present confusion about the rules and how to interpret and police them stems from FIA cowardice at that time. Feel free to include 1989 and 1990 in that.

If you were to push me to for a beginning of rating as drivers, I still believe that Senna was the fastest driver at the time of his death. And I think he is the fastest driver I have ever seen in action myself. Titles don't mean everything, which makes it easier for me to say I rate Prost (with 3 titles if you so wish) higher than Schumacher (with 6). But I have no idea where to put all the others in a ranking.

Still mixing your numbers after all these years. Anyway, this is probably what the OP should have clarified, how do you rank your drivers. For skill, overall package, speed, talent, what?


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: AnRs, Black_Flag_11, Siao7 and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group