Non champions

[D-Type]

Stirling Moss has frequently been described as "The greatest driver never to win the World Championship". Who do you consider ranks second? Or do you consider another driver deserves the title? Please explain your choice.

[BDunnell]

Stirling Moss has frequently been described as "The greatest driver never to win the World Championship". Who do you consider ranks second? Or do you consider another driver deserves the title? Please explain your choice.

Well, several spring to mind. Jacky Ickx came close in 1970 but, of course, says he was glad not to exceed Rindt's score. I am sure he would have won a title had Ferrari been able fully to focus itself on F1, without the distraction of sports cars — ironic, perhaps, given Ickx's own successes in the genre. An outstanding driver, smooth and quick — just as were Dan Gurney and Tony Brooks, two others deserving of honourable mention. And there is an argument to say that perhaps the greatest driver never to win a world championship F1 race, Chris Amon, ranks in this group too.

[Mintexmemory]

Gilles Villeneuve - words are superfluous, he was everything a racing driver should be.

[Rollo]

I don't think by a longshot that Eddie Irvine was one of the greatest drivers never to win the World Championship but I do think that he was deliberately robbed of one.

In the 1999 Japanese GP, Coulthard played an excellent job of holding up Irvine and so Irvine finished well behind Hakkinen and Schumacher. Schumacher though, put his Ferrari on pole and had the fastest laps of the race and then for almost no observable reason, got to sight distance of Hakkinen and pushed no harder.

I think that Schumacher knew that had he won the GP, he would have stolen the points which Hakkinen would accrue. Irvine would have been the first World Champion for Ferrari in twenty years and not Schumacher, and he resented that deeply.
I suspect that Schumacher proved that the car was easily capable of winning the race but that he threw it for the reason above.

[Ex-Jagboy]

Stirling Moss has frequently been described as "The greatest driver never to win the World Championship". Who do you consider ranks second? Or do you consider another driver deserves the title? Please explain your choice.

Those of us who had the good fortune to have actually seen Stirling at his peak, would readily endorse the view that he was undoubtably the best driver any of us have ever seen, driving 180mph cars on narrow tyres to their limit, frequently on genuine road circuits, wearing only a Herbert Johnson polo helmet for protection required a special kind of driver, certainly not seen today, The driver who perhaps closest resembled Stirling in terms of performance and technique would be Tony Brooks,who similarly had that uncanny ability to make high speed car control appear so smooth and effortless. Tony`s drive at the Nurburgring in 58, when he caught and overhauled the Ferraris, coming from a long way back, was very reminiscent of Fangio`s epic drive the year before. Tony Vandervell certainly knew what he was doing when he recruited both Stirling and Tony for his Vanwall team.

[Parabolica]

Didier Pironi.

He was looking like he was going to win the 82 championship. It took Rosberg three GP's to accrue more points.

[Mintexmemory]

Didier Pironi.

He was looking like he was going to win the 82 championship. It took Rosberg three GP's to accrue more points.

Just to prove there is a God!

[Parabolica]

Just to prove there is a God!

Do you refer to Gilles Villenueve and the events of Imola and Zolder?

It was never correct to say that Pironi was responsible for the rash decision-making and the psychological weakness of Villenueve.

It was these that cost Villenueve both his life and any hopes of being considered a title-contender. I always agreed with Derek Warwicks assessment that Villenueve was too big a risk-taker. Exciting to watch, yes, but fundamentally flawed as a Grand Prix driver.

[Parabolica]

I don't think by a longshot that Eddie Irvine was one of the greatest drivers never to win the World Championship but I do think that he was deliberately robbed of one.

In the 1999 Japanese GP, Coulthard played an excellent job of holding up Irvine and so Irvine finished well behind Hakkinen and Schumacher. Schumacher though, put his Ferrari on pole and had the fastest laps of the race and then for almost no observable reason, got to sight distance of Hakkinen and pushed no harder.

I think that Schumacher knew that had he won the GP, he would have stolen the points which Hakkinen would accrue. Irvine would have been the first World Champion for Ferrari in twenty years and not Schumacher, and he resented that deeply.
I suspect that Schumacher proved that the car was easily capable of winning the race but that he threw it for the reason above.

I always suspected this, too.

[Mintexmemory]

Do you refer to Gilles Villenueve and the events of Imola and Zolder?

It was never correct to say that Pironi was responsible for the rash decision-making and the psychological weakness of Villenueve.

It was these that cost Villenueve both his life and any hopes of being considered a title-contender. I always agreed with Derek Warwicks assessment that Villenueve was too big a risk-taker. Exciting to watch, yes, but fundamentally flawed as a Grand Prix driver.

In answer to the first question - Yes
As for the opinions of Derek Warwick, maybe he never had that good a handle on what makes a winning Grand Prix driver? Maybe I'm being unnecessarily provocative. Maybe GV had psychological weaknesses but to quote Marx he wasn't a 'ferret-faced chiseller' (Groucho)