The 50 Fastest F1 drivers ever

(According to a jury selected by F1Racing including the likes of Mosely, Whiting, Moss, Rosberg, Todt, Tambay)

50 Tony Brise
49 Jenson Button
48 Jean-Pierre Jarier
47 Riccardo Patrese
46 Dan Gurney
45 Jean Alesi
44 Rene Arnoux
43 Mark Webber
42 Jarno Trulli
41 Didier Pironi
40 Jo Siffert
39 Gerhard Berger
38 Johnny Servoz-Gavin
37 John Surtees
36 Tony Brooks
35 Carlos Pace
34 Hans-Joachin Stuck
33 Nino Farina
32 Jack Brabham
31 Damon Hill
30 Jody Scheckter
29 Tom Pryce
28 Carlos Reutemann
27 Mario Andretti
26 Jacky Ickx
25 Juan Pablo Montoya
24 Chris Amon
23 Francois Cevert
22 Alan Jones
21 James Hunt
20 Keke Rosberg
19 Stefan Bellof
18 Niki Lauda
17 Emerson Fittipaldi
16 Alberto Ascari
15 Nelson Piquet
14 Alain Prost
13 Kimi Raikkonen
12 Stirling Moss
11 Gilles Villeneuve
10 Jochen Rindt
9 Jackie Stewart
8 Fernando Alonso
7 Mika Hakkinen
6 Juan Manuel Fangio
5 Ronnie Peterson
4 Nigel Mansell
3 Jim Clark
2 Michael Schumacher
1 Ayrton Senna

Pretty comprehensive list there, However number 38 is a strange inclusion, as there were World Champions like Phil Hill and Mike Hawthorn that didn't make the cut. Also the magazine noted that one reason why Mansell is higher than Prost despite Prost being the higher pointscorer at Ferrari is that Prost with his super smooth style never seemed quick. What are your thoughts on this list?

To someone who started watching F1 in the 90s, the list seems comprehensive; but including the likes of Button and Webber while past world champions haven't made it is of course questionable. Also there are others who while obviously were quick, never achieved anything in F1 to reach such high numbers, e.g., Hans-Joachin Stuck and Gilles Villeneuve. Putting the latter at NO. 11 and Lauda at no. 18 should also raise some eyebrows. Jarno Truli? Yes he would have been multiple WDC if F1 races were less than 5 laps long but why is Truli here and not Fisichela who has more race wins to his name? Or Rubens or Ralf Schumacher for that matter... (not that I am advocating for their inclusion, I just want to know on what basis was Jarno included... Sorry pino :p )

and one more thing, why isn't JV here? Surely on the basis of his performance in his first 2 seasons he deserves to be included in the top50.

and JPM at 25 while his teammate who nearly got as many points as he did in Williams isn't in the list?

On second thoughts, the list seems rather imblanced to me, but these top 50 best ever kind of things can never really satisfy anyone, can they?

Where is for example Graham Hill? :o

But anyway, is there even a point to discuss or even draw up such standings? :) It's quite impossible to make a ranking for even the current drivers, let alone the rating of all times. The rankings may be whatever, it's always possible to find a lot of debatable there. For example in these rankings Berger is 39th and Alesi 45th, whereas the Frenchman was marginally better. Or Peterson 5th and Andretti 27th - it was a different story, when they were team-mates.

And another question that raises. How can that "fastness" be measured? Quickness in qualifying? Fastest lap in the race? The final race standings? But even the race may not show anyone's speed accurately as different strategies and situations often prevent valuing of the exact speed.

The only thing we can read out from these standings, is that how highly those persons in that jury generally rate each driver.

I can't see anything wrong with the top 3. However, one thing that I don't understand is how Senna is almost untouchable when it comes to speed in qualifying but only has 19 fastest laps in his entire career.

It's funny how Prost is only at 14 because he never seemed quick, but certainly was, and yet Mansell is at 4 because he always looked quick... ;)

Gilles Villeneuve defined quick, and yet only rated at 11 :eek:

Lists. You've gotta love 'em :s mokin:

Gilles should be at the top. In my opinion, he was the fastest racing driver of all time. He wasn't the best, as he lacked many of the qualities displayed by the likes of Senna, Schumacher, Prost, Stewart....etc, but he was definitely the fastest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aryan

To someone who started watching F1 in the 90s, the list seems comprehensive; but including the likes of Button and Webber while past world champions haven't made it is of course questionable. Also there are others who while obviously were quick, never achieved anything in F1 to reach such high numbers, e.g., Hans-Joachin Stuck and Gilles Villeneuve. Putting the latter at NO. 11 and Lauda at no. 18 should also raise some eyebrows. Jarno Truli? Yes he would have been multiple WDC if F1 races were less than 5 laps long but why is Truli here and not Fisichela who has more race wins to his name? Or Rubens or Ralf Schumacher for that matter... (not that I am advocating for their inclusion, I just want to know on what basis was Jarno included... Sorry pino :p )

---

It's ok aryan I can take jokes ;) now I seriously think Jarno deserves a much better position than 42th...I would say 14th, just after Kimi :p : And to put Gilles on 11th place is just :crazy: he deserves to be in top 3 :up:

Sheer speed has nothing to do with success in motor racing.

Another pointless "how can we fill eight pages this month?" feature ....

I think it is a lot more about how drivers are perceived than really grinding down all the statistics - for instance, we could argue that Jim Clark is the fastest because he has the most number of races where he led the whole race, had the fastest lap and pole position. However even then we would have to take account of the fact that you must at least pit once in modern formula One, etc etc. You can manipulate statistics to tell you anything, really. I think most of this list is perception because while Andretti, for instance, beat Peterson in 1978, it is Peterson who is known for spectacular feats of bravery, like drifting through Woodcote. Likewise Prost was never a spectacular driver and it was Mansell who was right in the spectacular moments, such as passing Berger around the outside of Peraltada, wheel to wheel with Senna in Spain '91, reeling in and passing Piquet at Silverstone '87 - the list goes on.
Ultimately, I tend to disagree with parts of all lists but for me they're always an interesting read.

Not too sure about Damon Hill. Yes, he did some amazing performances but he never had raw speed. Most of the time he had to concentrate and extract every ounce from within himself to achieve pole or to win races.

For Damon to be quick he made it look like bloody hard work!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vitesse

Sheer speed has nothing to do with success in motor racing.

Another pointless "how can we fill eight pages this month?" feature ....

---

There is an obsession with these lists these days, right across the media. It sure gets people talking, however.

My top three would be Senna, Peterson, Villeneuve.

Trouble is that a lot of magazines with these 'top whatever' lists in do sell well, and you can understand why. The mag I work for does them occasionally, not because they are great features (though they can be very good given the right topic and good words) but because people do seem to like them.

This one here is scraping the barrel a bit, if you ask me — just another way of putting the same names in a different order.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by theugsquirrel

(According to a jury selected by F1Racing including the likes of Mosely, Whiting, Moss, Rosberg, Todt, Tambay)

... 50 Tony Brise... 40 Jo Siffert...

Pretty comprehensive list there, However number 38 is a strange inclusion, as there were World Champions like Phil Hill and Mike Hawthorn that didn't make the cut... What are your thoughts on this list?

---

Strange too that Pedro Rodriguez was conveniently forgotten. The only reliable ride he ever had was with the John Wyer Gulf-Porsche outfit(GT40s & 917s). Aside from his infant years in GP racing at Ferrari, he appeared to do relatively well with 'decent' rides (namely BRM) when such occassions were presented.

Also, like Ickx, he was noted for his performances in the rain. Which should be a factor to consider when compiling such a list.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

It's funny how Prost is only at 14 because he never seemed quick, but certainly was, and yet Mansell is at 4 because he always looked quick... ;)

Gilles Villeneuve defined quick, and yet only rated at 11 :eek:

Lists. You've gotta love 'em :s mokin:

---

Yep, their list is at best 50% correct.

They must be kidding when they include Button, but not JV (I'm not even a fan of his). Also Jarno and Mark W shouldn't be on that list while WDCs are left out.

And what is Kimi doing in 13th place?!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AAReagles

Strange too that Pedro Rodriguez was conveniently forgotten. The only reliable ride he ever had was with the John Wyer Gulf-Porsche outfit(GT40s & 917s). Aside from his infant years in GP racing at Ferrari, he appeared to do relatively well with 'decent' rides (namely BRM) when such occassions were presented.

Also, like Ickx, he was noted for his performances in the rain. Which should be a factor to consider when compiling such a list.

---

On his day, Pedro was unbeatable, and the same goes for Ickx. I wonder what criteria were employed in compiling this list?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by futuretiger9

I wonder what criteria were employed in compiling this list?

---

Lots of subjectivity and the need to have a few modern era drivers (read Jenson Button here) between these 50.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by futuretiger9

I wonder what criteria were employed in compiling this list?

---

I believe that the selection tools included whiskey, a blindfold and a dart board. :p

Seriously, Mansell and Peterson faster than Fangio? :rolleyes: The Old Man had a reputation for winning races as slowly as possible, but he also started nearly 60% of the races he entered from the pole (Senna's record was 40%). Fangio was always as fast as he wanted to be and no one in his era could touch him. And Stewart 9th? He won 3 WDCs without ever having the fastest car in the field (the cars were only fast enough to win with Jackie Stewart driving them), and in 1973 he had the 3rd fastest car but won the most races (and Peterson won fewer races in a faster car).

The problem with the list is too many names. In the World Championship era, once you go past Fangio, Senna, Schumacher, Clark, Stewart, Prost, Moss and possibly Ascari, you are reaching.

ClarkFan

It's a somewhat meaningless list because, as has been said, raw speed doesn't always equate to success. Montoya, for example, is one of the most rapid men ever to set foot in a Formula One car, but lacked many of the other traits necessary to become a champion.

Damon Hill, on the other hand, was a WDC but got there through a combination of decent (but not blinding) speed, technical nouse, and sheer bloody-mindedness. Was he one of the 50 quickest? I don't think so.

Silly list from a silly magazine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

It's funny how Prost is only at 14 because he never seemed quick, but certainly was, and yet Mansell is at 4 because he always looked quick... ;)

---

indeed. And rosberg, berger - Why are they so low compared to Mansell, considering they easily at least equalled him? And where is Elio de Angelis, you know the guy who easily owned "our" Nigel at Lotus?

button as 49? hahahahaha. What is he doing on that list?
montoya at 25th (which in itself is beyond a joke) and Ralf nowhere? Can i ask what drugs were they using?

Why is alonso so high as nr.8? Why is Kimi 13th, yet the guy who is making him look slow, is nowhere to be found?
Bellof is grossy overrated aswell, considering Brundle is nowhere to be found on that list. There is so much retardation in that list Im beginning to think Peter Windsor played a significant part in making it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BeansBeansBeans

Gilles should be at the top. In my opinion, he was the fastest racing driver of all time. He wasn't the best, as he lacked many of the qualities displayed by the likes of Senna, Schumacher, Prost, Stewart....etc, but he was definitely the fastest.

---

How can you say Gilles was the fastest when he was beaten in equal cars by Jody and Reutemann?

I disagree with Garry Walker that Bellof is overrated. I think he could have become one of the greatest of all times without that Eau Rouge...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Garry Walker

indeed. And rosberg, berger - Why are they so low compared to Mansell, considering they easily at least equalled him? And where is Elio de Angelis, you know the guy who easily owned "our" Nigel at Lotus?

button as 49? hahahahaha. What is he doing on that list?
montoya at 25th (which in itself is beyond a joke) and Ralf nowhere? Can i ask what drugs were they using?

Why is alonso so high as nr.8? Why is Kimi 13th, yet the guy who is making him look slow, is nowhere to be found?
Bellof is grossy overrated aswell, considering Brundle is nowhere to be found on that list. There is so much retardation in that list Im beginning to think Peter Windsor played a significant part in making it.



How can you say Gilles was the fastest when he was beaten in equal cars by Jody and Reutemann?

---

As you quoted, its because Mansell looked quick in comparison. Such as Silverstone 87, Mexico City '90, Spain '91... Berger wasn't involved in as many spectacular incidents highlighting his speed. Rosberg always looked bloody quick...what year was he in the same team as Mansell?

My explanation of Button and Montoya rating highly is because Button is British and Montoya always seemed to be involved in something spectacular and daring, like passing at the Bus stop, interlagos '01 etc etc.
Alonso was rated so highly because he was a double world champion and beat Schumacher in a more or less equal car, also the fact that he is the most recent world champion helps when people nominate you.
Kimi...well...he had a reputation of being the nearly man in '03, he looked faster in '05 (presumably the car was a big factor) and grabbed pole twice in a very poor car in '06. Basically, he had a reputation for being really fast without good enough machinery. Massa last year was seen by many as the underling to Schumacher, and is (was?) rather poor in the wet. Which is no doubt a huge factor.

For Bellof, he had a reputation of being EXTRAORDINARILY fast in sportscars, he set the lap record at the Nurburgring Nordschliefe, he was 1984 sportscar champ, beating drivers such as Jacky Ickx. But his selling point for being on this list was Monaco '84, as he was closing on Senna and Prost, with a car with inferior amount of power. Which, some may argue, was in no small amount to Tyrells illegal lead ballast. Also, dying while trying to be the fastest and the bravest helps with peoples impressions of you as well.

And Gilles Villeneuve was beaten in his first season at Ferrari, and Reutemann was no slouch. He was almost a championship winner, and '78 was only Gilles 5th season of racing. He didn't win the championship in '79 because of team orders, and he was always constantly improving. Again, remembered for Monaco '81 in a dog of a car, Dijon '79, Getting sideways for 100 yards in Dijon Qualifying '81, Zandvoort '79, Jarama '81... being fastest in a wet practice session by 9 seconds...

Gilles always looked, and wanted, and LIVED to be the fastest and the bravest, and he was, in many drivers and fans eyes alike. Thats how I would justify Gilles being the fastest.

Thats how I guess the judging panel would've chosen those that you mentioned above.

Another thing that not many people have mentioned is that formula one started in 1946-47, and drivers such as Varzi, Wimille and Nuvolari are technically Formula 1 drivers. And since Wimille was considered the fastest in the world for a while, disregarding the greatness of Varzi and Nuvolari, I think its a bit of a shame they aren't on the list.

EDIT: The list said F1 drivers between 1950-2006. Oops.