F1’s Greatest Drivers ?

[journeyman racer]

Which career would you rather have?

You'd think this is a straight forward answer, wouldn't you? I would much rather be an F1 champ. But I'd much rather win the Indy 500 than a GP (with the faint exception of the Australian). Having crossed the line of World Champ, I think I would take an Indy 500 over another 2 F1 titles. I have huge regard for pre-96 Indy 500s as well.

I think so. Stewart was never in a car as unbeatable as the Williams. Most teams used a Cosworth those days and the cars were much more closely matched.

Really? It plausible that the Matra-Ford was the best, but not necessarily dominant, car in a weak field in 69. Partculalry accounting for the new rules regarding the wings. Using similar/same engines only magnifies the various strength/weaknesses of cars.

You won't have to do much research to know the Tyrrell in 71 was the best car. In fact, if it were able to be conclusively proven, I'd even bet that it was a stronger car, relative to it's opposition, than JV's Williams. And in 73, if the car wasn't dominant, it's had it's time as the better car throughout the season. I think it's also fair to say that JYS benefitted from a hugely supportive team, when Fittipaldi didn't. This is the reason why Fittipaldi left Lotus at the end of the season

Did I say anything was wrong with him?

No. but you're definitely not implying that HHF is good.

Villeneuve was the best driver in the year he won his championship (but some would argue Schumacher had a better year considering the equipment disparity). I just don't think that was as good as beating, Hill, Brabham, Hulme, Revson Fittipaldi, Ickx, Rodrigeuz, Siffert, etc, which Stewart did three times.

Beating Frentzen, Coulthard, Alesi just can't stand up to that.

-Despite Hill being the reigning champ in 69, he was finished. The drove such weak cars it didn't matter afterwards.
-Brabham was only for one year, and past his peak. A peak which by reputation, doesn't seem to be as high as others by reputation, despite his success.
- I've never read anywhere of Hulme being rated as an immense talent. Respected, but not comparable to Clark or Stewart.
-Revson, journeyman with potential. Was also in a weaker car.
- Fittipladi. Was less experienced than Stewart, and without the benefit of prepping modern day "greats" get when they were of similar age. It's fair enough, but easy to point out.
-Ickx. Alright. but I bet there was some weakness that prevented him from being champ.
- Rodriguez and Siffert. Too hard to fathom. Drove weaker cars. Between them only won one race more than HHF.

Did they all race, all of those seasons, at the same time? Some of those guys died in accidents. But anyway, on the other hand.

-HHF. Won two races in a Jordan. Not only that, he even threatened to win the WC in 99, despite driving a Jordan.
- 97 were the days before DC became a known soft****. He was quite formidable in 97.
-Alesi has a miserable winning record, but quite a good podium accumulation. Normally solid and his ability warranted more wins, as he was in contention to do so numerous times.

[journeyman racer]

Certainly JV beat Schumacher too, even without the DQ, but in the end MS scored three times the points of his teammate (Irvine) in the same car, suggesting that the Ferrari was not so good that year. I don't think anyone believes JV would have beaten Schumacher if the cars had been more equal.

It just confirms the already known notion that Schumacher was better than Irvine. The Ferrari was good that year. Unless JV was sandbagging, the laws of physics say so.

Ferrari was also revolved around supporting Schumacher, and making the most of his performance. JV didn't get this benefit. In fact, with the reputation Williams and Head have in managing the team and drivers, it's just as well their car had an advantage. JV (along with Hill. Maybe even Prost and Mansell) won the title in spite of the team

Stewart drove a variety of cars, and even managed to win in a BRM and a March. Once Villeneuve got out of the dominant Williams he did not fare so well. Perhaps that will provide some context for you.

You're only basing that on some wins. Of which there is not context of how they occurred. JV might not have won a race after 97. But I remember him being outstanding, relative of the McLaren/Ferrari, in 98. The two podiums he got were good performances. In fact, I now recall thinking during 98. That even though JV wasn't winning, he might actually have put in better driving performances in 98 than in 97

Finally, I thought that Villeneuve drove a brilliant season in 97, but he was also fortunate to have the dominant Williams when Schumacher was caught in a less than brilliant Ferrari. I don't believe for a minute that Villeneuve would have beaten Schumacher had the cars been more equal. We saw what happened over the course of the next five years when the roles were reversed.

That's your opinion. But your opinion of using "dominant" and "less than brilliant" is wrong. There was not one car JV drove from 98-02, that was as good as the 97 Ferrari as well.

In the end, Stewart retired with grace (and tragedy) to become an established and respected spokesman and elder statesman. He commands respect any and everywhere he goes.

Everything to do with his status within motorsport, sport in general. Nothing to do with the merit of his success, his driving abilities, relative to JV.

[jens]

What are we doing? Comparing 1997 to 1971/1969? Lovely. I'll join right in that discussion!

First of all, I rate Stewart higher than Jacques Villeneuve. If the name was Gilles Villeneuve, I'd hesitate – Stewart or Gilles?! Well, I don't know. Drivers with too different styles – Jackie as smooth, Gilles as ragged. But Jackie or Jacques – the answer is clear to me.

Anyway, about 1997 or 1970 or whatever. Any era (or specifically even year) has some things similar. At each moment we have a driver, or two or three, who is/are rated as the best drivers at that specific moment, the benchmarks. Around 1970 it was Stewart, around 1997 it was Schumacher. So there you go...

Then we have some excellent drivers, who are also very fast and threatening to steal the throne, be it Rindt, Fittipaldi, Ickx, Häkkinen, or J.Villeneuve from 1997. And then we have so-called journeymen, who are good #2 drivers, be it Regazzoni or Coulthard. And then we have drivers, who are already past their prime and on their way out, like Graham Hill and Brabham in 1969, or Berger in 1997. Then we have some young guns, who are rated as future stars, be it Cevert or Fisichella.

I think you catch the drift.

More specific head-to-head comparisons will give a headache. Who was faster, Rindt or Häkkinen? Ughogh?!?! All I know both were rated as supremely fast drivers in their prime, and we certainly didn't see enough of Rindt, who died only at 28...

[jens]

I always struggle in these threads, because I am certain its impossible to merge era's.

I believe Fangio, Clark, Stewart, Lauda, Prost, Piquet, Senna, Schumi are all greats of F1. No one can say which is better. There are plenty of others too.

I also have limited knowledge of pre 1990 so I can only go on reading and documentary etc.

This is pretty much what I also think. Each period or era has a driver or two (Senna/Prost overlap each other, so they are basically in the same era), who are the so-called benchmarks of their era. So they are the greats.

Sometimes the picture gets hazy, when car performances are comparable and several drivers seem like standout performers. Like the late 1970s/early 1980s with Andretti, G.Villeneuve, Piquet, Prost, also Keke Rosberg - it was difficult to choose between them at some times. Scheckter, Jones, Reutemann and some others were right up there as well. So it gets really complicated there.

[Roamy]

Gilles was the last great driver. The rest of us are just a bunch of good professionals.”
– Alain Prost,

[anfield5]

Add to the recognised greats names like Ignazio Giunti. Who was a good/great sportscar driver, who was on the verge of F1 greatness before his tragic death in 1971 at the Buenos Aries sports car round.