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)

[Parabolica]

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)

Maybe you are correct about Warwick. I don't recall him being as fast as Villenueve. Nor do I recall him doing anything as reckless. I know that, for some, Zandvoort 1979 was fantastic. Personally, I thought it was idiotic.

It was his never-give-up approach, of course. But a Grand Prix champion has to look at the bigger picture. A fantastic racer, no doubt. But well short of having a Champions focus.

I also never bought into the Pironi-as-a-pantomime-villain myth, as pedalled by Nigel Roebuck. In deed, I always suspected that the likes of Roebuck had already found Pironi guilty of being French long before the Imola incident and was more than happy to crucify him on a one-sided, uncorroborated, statement from Villenueve.

There was no Divine actions on the Saturday at Hockenheim in 1982. Just a man in agonising pain. Sadly.

[BDunnell]

Maybe you are correct about Warwick. I don't recall him being as fast as Villenueve. Nor do I recall him doing anything as reckless. I know that, for some, Zandvoort 1979 was fantastic. Personally, I thought it was idiotic.

It was his never-give-up approach, of course. But a Grand Prix champion has to look at the bigger picture. A fantastic racer, no doubt. But well short of having a Champions focus.

John Watson, someone for whom I have much respect, has said Villeneuve on occasion drove 'like a hyperactive child'. His view of the man is much like Derek Warwick's, and Watson, without doubt, was a man who knew how to race and win Grands Prix.

[rjbetty]

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.

Rollo, I absolutely believe this. Also, Schumacher looked very guilty when reporters pushed him on this in questioning, diverting attention to Coulthard. The 2000 race just confirmed it even more for me. The difference between how hard he was trying compared to the 1999 race was stark.

[Parabolica]

One that is remembered with affection is Wolfgang Von Trips.

I was starkly touched by the words of Phil Hill many years later, who said that winning a World Championship was supposed to be the greatest moment in a drivers life, yet events meant that he felt sorrow and numbness.

Another I have heard about, but was too young to witness, was Francois Cevert. Of course, the 1974 Tyrrell was maybe not a Championship car in comparison to the 003 model, but he was strongly tipped to be a big contender when he passed away.

I am sorry if I have taken this thread in a morbid direction.

I can make funny balloons, if it is a compensation.

[driveace]

I was fortunate to see Wolfgang Von Trips at the British Grand Prix,the very last time he did it in maybe 1961 ish .He died very shortly after that ,in maybe the next race he did.

[D-Type]

The German GP came between the British and Italian GPs in 1961.

He finished a posthumous 2nd to Phil Hill in the championship one point behind. So, had he not been killed he would have been in contention.

[BDunnell]

The German GP came between the British and Italian GPs in 1961.

He finished a posthumous 2nd to Phil Hill in the championship one point behind. So, had he not been killed he would have been in contention.

There is a horrible irony in the fact that both times a US driver has won the championship, their team mate has been killed in or as a result of the race in which they took the title.

[wedge]

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)


Maybe you are correct about Warwick. I don't recall him being as fast as Villenueve. Nor do I recall him doing anything as reckless. I know that, for some, Zandvoort 1979 was fantastic. Personally, I thought it was idiotic.

It was his never-give-up approach, of course. But a Grand Prix champion has to look at the bigger picture. A fantastic racer, no doubt. But well short of having a Champions focus.

I also never bought into the Pironi-as-a-pantomime-villain myth, as pedalled by Nigel Roebuck. In deed, I always suspected that the likes of Roebuck had already found Pironi guilty of being French long before the Imola incident and was more than happy to crucify him on a one-sided, uncorroborated, statement from Villenueve.

There was no Divine actions on the Saturday at Hockenheim in 1982. Just a man in agonising pain. Sadly.

John Watson shared the same opinion and he's a race winner and not to mention an under rated racer.

He thought Gilles drove for the wrong team and that his talent needed managing and Watson thought McLaren could probably tame/refine him.

I've remember coming across similar comments from a Lotus mechanic regarding Ronnie Peterson "very quick, but probably needed managing" and thus I would say the same about Stefan Bellof. Notice a pattern here? Lairy/flair drivers. Schekter used to have a reputation.

I don't think Gilles was psychologically weak but his mentality was that he lived life at his fullest and certainly if not Zolder then a helicopter crash/fatality would be unsurprising.

Gilles raced to win and far too much of a romantic. Racing for points wasn't part of his make up (Jacky Ickx uses the same 'excuse'. I'm not sure what to make of him as he comes across as an intelligent guy).

In effect going into Zolder '82 with Gilles' frame of mind and his mentality it was almost like a ticking time bomb.

Sayin that Gilles was undoubtedly a great driver as he could polish a turd but perhaps not an all time great (multiple WDCs) if he couldn't be tamed and I doubt he would want or convinced to be tamed.

Also worth noting is that regardless of team order Gilles could have been WDC if he was ruthless enough. Schekter remarked that he was was worried looking in the mirror with Gilles up his backside at the 1979 Italian GP.

As for Roebuck I admire his knowledge and work as a journalist. Although he struck a number of friendships and relationships with drivers there is good and bad points to this and unfortunately he as very biased towards a number of drivers. He can be all to happy to slam Mansell who was a fantastic racer and yet be happily talk about Montoya even though he was a divisive character within the GP paddock as much as Mansell was! I seem to remember Roebuck mentioning Jenks had similar contradictory logic but there is no doubt Roebuck has his favourites.

[Parabolica]

How about, on the basis of early 1980 and the summer of 1983, the other Dijon protagonist?

Rene Arnoux, possibly the fastest Frenchman of all time.

[BDunnell]

John Watson shared the same opinion and he's a race winner and not to mention an under rated racer.

And one more thoughtful about such things than your average GP driver.



I don't think Gilles was psychologically weak but his mentality was that he lived life at his fullest and certainly if not Zolder then a helicopter crash/fatality would be unsurprising.

Or a road accident.

The stories of Villeneuve's helicopter flying bear out your view. One is inevitably reminded of Colin McRae.



Gilles raced to win and far too much of a romantic. Racing for points wasn't part of his make up (Jacky Ickx uses the same 'excuse'. I'm not sure what to make of him as he comes across as an intelligent guy).

I think it is possible not to care about racing for points and still drive within oneself. Ickx, who never appeared to be in the Villeneuve mould in this regard, I believe bears this out.

As for Ickx himself, he seems, from what one has read, to be rather a changed character these days, a fact he appears to recognise — somewhat more thoughtful and grateful towards others. I think it was David Hobbs who recalled him less than fondly from their days together in the John Wyer sports car team, describing Ickx as extremely selfish. Few say that of him now.

[D28]

I also never bought into the Pironi-as-a-pantomime-villain myth, as pedalled by Nigel Roebuck. In deed, I always suspected that the likes of Roebuck had already found Pironi guilty of being French long before the Imola incident and was more than happy to crucify him on a one-sided, uncorroborated, statement from Villenueve.

There was no Divine actions on the Saturday at Hockenheim in 1982. Just a man in agonising pain. Sadly.

Fairly or not, legions of Villeneuve fans do hold Pironi partly responsible for his death. While GV was the consummate team player, the same cannot be said of Pironi. After faithfully following Scheckter home at Monza in 79, GV totally outraced him in the remaining two races, ending with a 2nd in Canada and a win at Watkins Glen. Expecting something similar from Pironi, he was bound to be disappointed.
Alastair Caldwell of McLaren is quoted (Motor Sport 5/2012): "It was tragic what happened with Pironi.In a team like McLaren that would never have been allowed to escalate like it did. In the end it was a disaster".
Mostly forgotten now, but Ferrari won the Constructors title in 82 despite losing both their top drivers. missing some entries and using 4 different pilots. With a bit more management discipline, surely the drivers title could also have been capped by GV.

In the end, his own mini second decision ended his life, but from all his choices in race cars, road cars, helicopters, even snowmobiles, he never seemed one destined for savouring his grand children.

[BOZIANracing]

If GV had lived, the rule changes for 1983 may have suited his style more than the ground effect cars, and he could have had maybe 2 titles to his name. I'm not sure if he would have stayed at Ferrari, especially with their erratic form in the following years. But I can't imagine him in anything else. His approach was uncompromising, and as mentioned he perhaps needed better managing, but the way he drove ensures that we still talk about him 30 years on. I am too young to have seen him race but he is one of my idols

[wedge]

It can be argued Gilles was naive at handling Pironi at Imola. In the previous season Carlos Reutimann disobeyed team orders (and also broke his contract) and stole the Brazillian GP from Alan Jones - Carlos too could have been champion that season.

Gilles was offered to drive for McLaren for 1983. It would have been interesting with the repercussions of Prost and perhaps Senna.

[anfield5]

Haven't read every post so apologies if these drivers have been mentioned

Carlos Reutemann - should have won in 1982 instead of Rosberg, but the Falklands War nonsense intervened. Gilles Villeneuve and/or Didier Pironi both probably should have won in 1982 but for tragedies. Possibly add the name Gerhard Berger to the list as well. And Chris Amon - plenty good enough to win multiple championships let alone races.

[D-Type]

In an idle moment I had a look at the 'virtual podium' (top 3) in each world championship. It was surprising just how many were past or future champions - including several complete 'podiums'. There were about 20 with a single 'podium' appearance, which is too many to list. The multiple appearances were:

Two
Berger
Brooks
Massa

Three
Barichelllo
Ickx
Patrese
Peterson

Four
Coulthard
Reutemann

And Moss with seven, ironically his favourite number

A couple of surprises there and a couple of surprising 'did he get only one' drivers.


(My apologies if I've miscounted any of them.)

[BDunnell]

In an idle moment I had a look at the 'virtual podium' (top 3) in each world championship. It was surprising just how many were past or future champions - including several complete 'podiums'. There were about 20 with a single 'podium' appearance, which is too many to list. The multiple appearances were:

Two
Berger
Brooks
Massa
Regazzoni (as D28 pointed out)
McLaren ( - ditto - )

Three
Barichelllo
Ickx
Patrese
Peterson

Four
Coulthard
Reutemann

And Moss with seven, ironically his favourite number

A couple of surprises there and a couple of surprising 'did he get only one' drivers.


(My apologies if I've miscounted any of them.)

Most interesting. Without checking any of it myself, this would appear very much to confirm the views of those who feel strongly that it's not always about the points. Trouble is, this can be 'proved' however one wishes to look at it.

[555-04Q2]

Why has Takumo Sato been left out here :p :

[D28]

In an idle moment I had a look at the 'virtual podium' (top 3) in each world championship. It was surprising just how many were past or future champions - including several complete 'podiums'. There were about 20 with a single 'podium' appearance, which is too many to list. The multiple appearances were:

(My apologies if I've miscounted any of them.)

As I understand your analysis, I believe Clay Regazzoni would qualify, as he finished 3rd in 1970 and 2nd in 1974. He was a very thorough backup pilot to Ickx and Lauda at Ferrari (4 wins) and also took the win for Williams at the 79 British GP.

[D-Type]

Sorry! I missed Regga out - by accident I assure you.

[D28]

Very interesting analysis which for me shows that in most years the deserving driver did emerge as WC. The cream does tend to rise to the top in F1.
Usually 1958 is cited as an exception given 4 wins to 1 for Moss vs Hawthorn. Looking at the stats it is clear that Hawthorn was a model of consistency. Under a slightly different scoring system Moss could have been champion. The differential between 1st and 2nd was only 33% (8-6) at the time, currently it is 25-18 or 39%. Applying the 1961 system (9-6 or 50%), Moss would have scored 45 with his 3 FLs. to Hawthorn's 43. However, only the 6 best results counted and Hawthorn actually scored 49 points having to discard 7 points (8 under the 61 system). So under a revised point system Hawthorn still could have won__ if all races counted. Of course the system was understood by both. I think the case for Hawthorn being somewhat undeserving is not as clearcut as appears at first glance.
I don't recall the circumstances of Moss intervening with the stewards on Hawthorn's behalf which also may have cost him the championship. Suffice to say sporting conditions were different in the era.

After 1958 Moss never again raced with a factory team, lessening any further chances for a world title. Perhaps it wasn't his single minded goal.

Not to nit pick at all, but Bruce McLaren also was on the WC podium in 60 and 62 and should be on the original list.

[D-Type]

Whoops! Add Bruce McLaren to the list!

An interesting thing is that when you apply other scoring systems, even to the extreme of number of wins or a 24,23,22, ..., 1 points system, the majority of champions don't change and when they do the main effect is the number of championships won by multiple champions. From memory, I think the only non-champion who becomes a champion is Moss.

In boxing, a champion remains champion until he is defeated. Could we have something like this in F1? You couldn't go on a "who won the last race?" basis but you could do it on a rolling score basis: "Points scored (or number of wins) in the last year (or 6 months or 2 years)". Fangio and Schumacher would still reign as Champion for many years while tightly contested eras would probably show the World Champion changing between two drivers almost race by race. I've never tried it, so I don't know, but it would be an interesting exercise.

[D28]

The boxing analogy is a bit to radical for F1 for my taste. I prefer stability in scoring which is one knock against the present system. I liked the 1961 or 91 systems, and never liked the discarding of points with only x number of races counting. Thus Prost should have been champion again 1n 1988 outpointing Senna 105 to 94.
Someone did a rescoring exercise here a few years back and you are right about not many changes resulted.
It gives statisticians something more to discuss, or argue about I guess.

[Parabolica]

Although a Prost devotee, I do believe that he would have lost the 86 title had the dropped-scores system not been in place?

[D28]

Although a Prost devotee, I do believe that he would have lost the 86 title had the dropped-scores system not been in place?

The totals for 86 were 74 Prost 72 Mansell. Both dropped 2 to make it 72 to 70. It made no difference,

[Parabolica]

The totals for 86 were 74 Prost 72 Mansell. Both dropped 2 to make it 72 to 70. It made no difference,
But Mansell would he been Champion, as he scored more wins. I believe that the count-back system did apply.

[Ex-Jagboy]

The 1958 season,and perhaps the most compelling involving British drivers , was probably ultimately decided more by mechanical retirements at crucial periods, rather than by an idiotic scoring system, with the Ferrari`s superior reliability clearly being a major factor in Hawthorn`s narrow championship win, Although it could equally be argued that Hawthorn was denied victory at Monaco due to fuel pump failure, and should have won at Monza ,when comfortably leading, only to suffer serious clutch slip, gifting the win to Brooks, but nevertheless still managing to secure 2nd place, Yet Moss`s 5 retirements similarly at crucial periods almost certainly denied him victories in a number of races, denying him, as we later learnt, his last serious opportunity to win the world crown in a properly structured works team. Whether or not Hawthorn was deserving of his championship, or was not even the 2nd best driver that year is a debate that those who experienced that era will continue to argue over.

[jens]

Not going to add anything here at the present moment. I just want to say a big thank you to you, dear F1 enthusiasts. :) Very nice and intelligent discussion to read.

[journeyman racer]

Off the top of my head, since I've been following F1 (1990), JP Montoya would have to be the best one? He's the only one who hadn't won a title that I could imagine being a champ. Actually, make that equal best with Robert Kubica. (Hopefully Robbie can build himself up to win the WRC!)

Special mention to HHF. I really wanted him to get that 99 title!

[555-04Q2]

Special mention to HHF. I really wanted him to get that 99 title!

Remember the 99 season well. It was a pretty dramatic one and HHF had a great year in the Jordan. Pity they couldn't close out the season :(