BBC: F1's Greatest Driver

[rich1701]

It annoys me when people forget the late 90s when Schumacher was in a car that started the season a second behind the Newey cars from 96 to 99 and was almost always a title contender. He was clearly the best driver in his generation and he worked hard to make the Ferrari team into what it became and reaped the rewards. And it wasn't plain sailing for Schumacher in 2003 he won despite having a considerably inferior tyre package.

[delacf]

My list:

50's: Fangio

60's: Clark

70`s: Great drivers but...

80´s - 90´s: Senna

90's- 00´s: Shumacher

10´s: Great drivers but...

No need to sort. Cheers

It annoys me when people forget the late 90s when Schumacher was in a car that started the season a second behind the Newey cars from 96 to 99 and was almost always a title contender. He was clearly the best driver in his generation and he worked hard to make the Ferrari team into what it became and reaped the rewards. And it wasn't plain sailing for Schumacher in 2003 he won despite having a considerably inferior tyre package.

+1

[SchumiSutil]

So as expected...

But this, in bold, is particularly biased.

" Senna finally got his hands on a Williams in 1994, and he was expected to carry all before him. But with the car's driver aids all now banned, and a design flaw in its front wing, it was initially a handful.

It took all his genius to put it on pole for the opening race of the season in Brazil, but in the race he was helpless against the faster Benetton of Michael Schumacher and Senna suffered the ignominy of spinning out as he tried to catch the German. "


The "faster Benetton" was nowhere compare even to Damon Hill when Schumacher was not behind the wheel.

[raymondu999]

Obviously, they are pandering to mass demand. They are sending a subliminal message about the true number one... D. Hill.

They are just afraid of letting the world know, for fear of backlash

[f1316]

This has always wrangled with me:

"...in seeking to justify the [1990 Suzuka] crash he dissembled. "We are competing to win and if you no longer go for a gap, you are no longer a racing driver," he said, failing to mention that the move was never truly on. He finally admitted it was deliberate a year later."

So he admits it as a deliberate crash. Schumacher was disqualified from the 1997 world championship for a deliberate crash in order to try to win the title, so, were the same rules applied, that title would be taken away from Senna.

Prost also got more points that Senna in 1988.

My point is that I find it odd that people can be so unequivocal about him being better than Prost. It's rare you hear anyone toting Prost as the better of the two, but I think that has more to do with romance and philosophy than the cold, hard facts.

It's like the way Jimi Hendrix is always voted the top guitarist, or the Beatles the top band. It seems they have become the standard, accepted answers, no matter whether people come along after who are technically superior. Which is not to say that this necessarily makes, say, Paul Gilbert better than Jimi Hendrix - or more pertinently Schumacher better than Senna - but it baffles me that one answer is so regularly agreed upon when there is clearly room for debate.

[Nando]

but I think that has more to do with romance and philosophy than the cold, hard facts.

What facts?

[FoxHound]

It seems they have become the standard, accepted answers, no matter whether people come along after who are technically superior. Which is not to say that this necessarily makes, say, Paul Gilbert better than Jimi Hendrix - or more pertinently Schumacher better than Senna - but it baffles me that one answer is so regularly agreed upon when there is clearly room for debate.

Technically superior? Through which measurement?
I don't want to rear the thread into a driver ying yang thread....but the reason Senna is held in such high esteem is because he started in a garbage can Toleman, pushed like buggery where conditions allowed and transcended his car to the point everyone could say....ok that was the man, not the machine. How often can you say that in F1?

Schumacher? Yes
Anyone else in the Modern era? Not really, although Hamilton/Alonso do show glimpses.

We also have to consider Senna was paired with the best driver other than himself, Prost. Schumacher has never taken any sort of in-team competition, other than at Mercedes which is hardly succesful compared to his first career.
Many predicted a torrid time for Senna, a comeuppance of sorts. His first season at Macca and he beats Prost, outqualfying him 14 to 2.
The points difference was marginal, as it would be with 1 team dominating a season and 2 top calibre drivers in the seats.

And in 1989, the season that Prost did beat Senna...well here is a stat that is most remarkable....Out of the 8 races Senna completed(he had 6 DNFs and 1 DSQ to Prost's 3) He beat Prost 7 of 8 times. And we saw him out qualify Prost 16 to 2.
Forget the Ballestre balls up, or the Emotional shananigans. Senna was a cut above a supreme driver in Prost.
He murdered him in terms of pure speed, and 1989 will go down as missed opportunity for Senna for a variety of reasons.

1.He had car failure in the USA while leading Prost... engine failure.
2.The next race in Canada, both he and Prost suffered failures...Suspension for Prost..and engine for Senna...again while leading and lost power on the penultimate lap. Engine failure for Senna suspension for Prost.
3.The next race in France Senna's car suffered diff Failure at the very start. Diff failure
4.The very next race Senna spun going into becketts having experienced gear selection problems. 50/50 on Driver/Car error. Gearbox/clutch failure for Senna
5.In Italy(the 12th round) Senna retired once more due to engine failure whilst leading. Engine failure.
6In Portugal(13th round), Mansell punted Senna of the track from behind in what was a racing incident with more than just a little blame going to Mansell....He shouldn't have been racing in that race for an incident in the pitlane earlier. Plain unlucky.
7.Japan, we all saw what happened here. A race incidentally Prost retired from for abandoning his car. FIA decision making meltdown....
8. Prost withdrew from the final race and Senna had a collison whilst overtaking backmarkers.

Prost had 1 technical failure.
Senna had 5, and each time it failed he was ahead of Prost.

Prost scored more points by default. Senna outdid him but was undone by misfortune and reliability.

Prost is still a legend, doesnt matter what Senna fans say of him. He was class. But Senna had him in his pocket I'm afraid, and excuse the length of the post

[raymondu999]

the reason Senna is held in such high esteem is because he started in a garbage can Toleman, pushed like buggery where conditions allowed and transcended his car to the point everyone could say....ok that was the man, not the machine. How often can you say that in F1?

Alas, poor Bellof

[f1316]

It seems they have become the standard, accepted answers, no matter whether people come along after who are technically superior. Which is not to say that this necessarily makes, say, Paul Gilbert better than Jimi Hendrix - or more pertinently Schumacher better than Senna - but it baffles me that one answer is so regularly agreed upon when there is clearly room for debate.

Technically superior? Through which measurement?

That sentence is part of the musical analogy - plenty of musicians are technically superior on their instruments to Hendrix or the Beatles; my point, as it relates to F1, is that, considering, say, Schumacher's stats, it surprises me that the wealth of popular opinion doesn't favour him.

Just as with music, where people will say technical ability has nothing to do with writing a good song, statistics don't necessarily prove who the better driver is. But my point is that Senna always seems to be on top of polls like this, but rarely is it Schumacher or Prost, both of whom have won more races.

Personally, I think it has a lot to do with a "flock" mentality, where if something becomes the perceived wisdom, it is invariably taken without question. And no, I'm not calling anyone here a sheep, I'm sure all of you have a wealth of reasons to support your conclusions.

[f1316]

but I think that has more to do with romance and philosophy than the cold, hard facts.

What facts?

Just that people like Schumacher and Prost have won more races and more World championships. I'm not saying it proves anything about them being *better* - which is always going to be somewhat subjective - but that I'm surprised opinion doesn't split it more 50/50. I think the reason it doesn't is because Senna's philosophy resonates more - it's more romantic.

Prost having more points in 1988 and being deliberately driven into by Senna in 1990, which could, by 1997's standards, have conceivably have seen Senna stripped of that title, show that two of his titles are not without taint. Again, this is something that might sully another man's reputation. But it doesn't seem to have much effect on Senna's.

I'm also always surprised that getting pole position is seen as in any way comparable to winning races and accumulating points. The only purpose of getting pole position is to give a better chance to win a race; I don't think it's an achievement in and of itself.

[beelsebob]

but I think that has more to do with romance and philosophy than the cold, hard facts.

What facts?

Just that people like Schumacher and Prost have won more races and more World championships.

People like Schumacher and Prost weren't killed after racing for 5 years.

Prost having more points in 1988 and being deliberately driven into by Senna in 1990, which could, by 1997's standards, have conceivably have seen Senna stripped of that title, show that two of his titles are not without taint. Again, this is something that might sully another man's reputation. But it doesn't seem to have much effect on Senna's.

On the other hand, Senna being disquilified in 1989 for something that had never before been penalised and has never since been penalised is not without taint for Prost either.

[Nando]

Just that people like Schumacher and Prost have won more races and more World championships. I'm not saying it proves anything about them being *better* - which is always going to be somewhat subjective - but that I'm surprised opinion doesn't split it more 50/50. I think the reason it doesn't is because Senna's philosophy resonates more - it's more romantic.

Prost having more points in 1988 and being deliberately driven into by Senna in 1990, which could, by 1997's standards, have conceivably have seen Senna stripped of that title, show that two of his titles are not without taint. Again, this is something that might sully another man's reputation. But it doesn't seem to have much effect on Senna's.

I'm also always surprised that getting pole position is seen as in any way comparable to winning races and accumulating points. The only purpose of getting pole position is to give a better chance to win a race; I don't think it's an achievement in and of itself.

World championships and wins are not some concrete thing that says anything about your skill set.
It only shows that you are quick enough to be accepted by top teams and that you have had the privilege of running some of the best cars of your time.

The reason it´s not split 50/50 is because Senna did things that was unheard of for some 20 years since Clark died.

Prost never outqualified Senna by 1,5s
Prost never lapped nearly the whole field and made world class drivers look like they started racing the same day.

As Berger said, "as soon as the rain came down Senna took off and basically made us all look like idiots"
These are the sort of things that put Senna WELL clear of Prost in terms of being the best. in my opinion.
Prost can have 450 titles it would make no difference.

Prost is definitely one of the best drivers ever but it was crystal clear to me at least Senna was on a different level.

I´m not surprised by your thinking of Pole Position, classic reply from engineers or similar.

[SchumiSutil]

Prost scored more points by default. Senna outdid him but was undone by misfortune and reliability.

Sorry, I'm mot trying to answer to all your post, but it's slightly more complex than that. I remember long discussions about this...

Prost never outqualified Senna by 1,5s

So, points are given on Sunday... You can see also that the gap between Senna and Prost in quali was almost as large as the gap between Senna and Berger. And no one, absolutely no one, can argue that Berger and Prost had similar level.

Prost never lapped nearly the whole field and made world class drivers look like they started racing the same day.

You certainly miss some of Prost greatest drives. Australia 1986, Portugal 1987, France 1988 (maybe his best), Mexico 1990 (or is it his best)...
Don't forget, he was able to outclassed Senna with the same car, as proven in more occasions that you suggest.

Prost can have 450 titles it would make no difference.

That make a difference. At the end they are racing for winning championships. Prost won it four times, again with 4 different world champions as teammates (Lauda, Rsoberg, Senna, Hill).
He is truly one of the greatest, but it's strange how people still talk about his qualif ratio against Senna or his ability in the wet, just as if a Formula 1 career is about 30 qualifying sessions and some wet races.
Yes fact is that he took more points in his championships that every of his teammates. When you see his teammates, it's a huge achievement.

[Nando]

Sure points are given on a Sunday....but it still doesn´t detract from the fact that he completely destroyed him.
Which he did in the Monaco races pretty much every single time.

Yea France 1988 (maybe his best) was so great, really amazing how he managed to clear everyone by 30 seconds when Senna behind had gearbox problems and eased of.

Truly mindblowing.

Prost/Senna is like Hamilton/Button

It´s actually a bit scary seeing the similarities between the four guys.

[Nando]

Yes fact is that he took more points in his championships that every of his teammates. When you see his teammates, it's a huge achievement.

He was beaten by Watson in his rookie year.
Beaten by Niki Lauda as well.

And beaten by Senna because only the 11 best results counted towards the championship.