Soldato
Duke said:
Wondered when that was coming. No great shock, after all - we all knew it was only a matter of time before they got Maldonado's name on there.
F1 2011 season news / pre-season updates
- Thread starter Duke
- Start date
- Status
Wondered when that was coming. No great shock, after all - we all knew it was only a matter of time before they got Maldonado's name on there.
Of course he was...
That's an interesting way of getting out of a losing debate: "Ah ha...but that was a special case."
Sorry man, but that doesn't work. The Daddy of F1 does not necessarily have to have the No.1 on his car. This year Button had No.1 on his car, yet from the word go the vast majority of F1 fans, felt that he would get beaten by Hamilton (which is what indeed happened). At no stage, did he exude the aura of dominance.
Having No.1 on your car merely means that the previous year, the driver (and his machine) were the strongest package. If your car is 1s/lap faster than your rivals, it stands to question that you will have a good chance of winning the title. And before you say "Oh but Vettel still had to beat Webber" - as I've stated time and time again this year, Webber is not a top line driver. He was never going to be able to outscore Vettel this year, I said this from day 1 and continued saying this even when Webber had a huge lead over Vettel (other people on this forum probably thought I was demented). Vettel's title this year has come courtesy of having a car which has enjoyed one of the biggest advantages over its rivals...probably since 2004 and by having the full support of his team's management.
Winning an F1 world title is an important achievement for any F1 driver. There is no question about that. But to say that just because a particular driver won the title in a particular year, he is was the best driver, that year, is not necessarily correct.
1993 is a fantastic example of this: Senna finished 2nd in the championship. However, it was widely felt that he drove the best in 1993 and that Prost was now past it.
Savvy, moose-brain?
There you go with the insults. You can't debate or win an argument, so just call the other guy some rude names.
IMO, Alonso was the best driver in 2010. However, no matter how good the driver is, you cannot possibly expect him to make up a 1s/lap advantage (which RBR had over its rivals, at some of the races this year). No driver in F1 can make up this sort of gap. In general, the difference between the 1st best driver (Alonso) and the 3rd best driver (Vettel), will be about 1-2%...if that. However, this small advantage would be enough to allow Alonso to eek out a gap over Vettel, during the course of a full season. If you argued that Hamilton was better than Alonso this year...we could've had a good debate, but to say that Vettel is the top man, is just ridiculous.
Once again, sunama makes a play for the "Brain of Britain Award"
You probably believe that the more insults you throw at someone, the better you will look. This is not the case. Hopefully, one day, you will realise this.
The fact remains that the polls this year have shown that the most knowledgeable people in F1 (ie. team bosses and current F1 drivers), have voted Alonso as the best driver in F1. Even I wouldn't be crazy enough to argue against this, which is what you seem to be attempting to do. I think the only thing left for you to say is, "F1 drivers and F1 bosses know nothing about F1".
Soldato
1-Senna
2-Fangio
3-Clark
All of TODAYS drivers and Teams was asked and that is what they picked.
Even Alonso said Senna was the best driver EVER. so SHHHH about who is the daddy.
Soldato
sunama said:
*sigh*
I thought I'd made it quite clear why Senna in '94 is a special case, but once more with feeling:
me said:
Highlighted the bit that was the main point.
Heh. You're one to talk about debating technique. How many times have you flat-out ignored posts of mine simply because they don't provide you with an opportunity to say "LOL JRS WAS WRONG LOL"?
Case in point - the above. You read the opening bit of the post, decided to run with it and ignored the explanation that I'd provided. So what's the point in me actually posting any replies to you? You don't read them! It's all a giant waste of effort.
Anyway, before I bore the rest of the forum to death - something that is actually on-topic.
Glock "100%" certain that he's staying with Virgin. No definite word on who is in the second car yet.
![[TW]Taggart](/styles/overclockers/avatars/4.png){kind=avatar}
Associate
- Joined
- 29 May 2005
- Posts
- 1,006
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula_one/9255871.stm
F1 Will adopt new green engines from 2013
/o\
F1 Will adopt new green engines from 2013
/o\
Soldato
Why is it rubbish? It's my opinion that Hamilton should have had to serve an apprenticeship somewhere. That's not a fact or a rule its my opinion. I don't like people who become superstars straight away. I like to see my sporting stars work to get to the top in the sport. Hamilton worked his way into F1 but then didn't have to work IN F1 to get to the top.
Soldato
[TW]Taggart;17928780 said:
Now, when even Ferrari object to something on cost grounds, might it not be a good idea to take another look at the plan?
Ah well. World Championship GP racing has been run with 1.5litre N/A engines before ('61 to the end of '65), and it wasn't a problem from a 'show' standpoint. Got to echo Flibster and say that it's a pity that they're mandating four-banger motors rather than allowing some freedom with cylinder configurations though. At least in the turbo era last time around you had I4's (BMW, Hart, Zakspeed) versus V6's (Ferrari, Honda, Renault, Motori Moderni, TAG) versus V8's (Alfa, um....actually, just Alfa!).
Erm...those drivers are all dead.
We are talking about "the daddy of F1", out of those drivers who racing today.
With regards to past drivers, personally, I don't rate Fangio too highly, namely because when he did his "thing" there was less competition around (fewer people attempted to become a race driver), the championship was made up of fewer races and Fangio always seemed to find himself in the best car.
Don't get me wrong, he won 5 championships - nothing to be sniffed at - but I just don't think he was as good as the guys that proceeded him a few decades later.
I'm also surprised at the inclusion of Clark.
Do you have a link to this poll?
Soldato
The grids were a lot bigger than they are today, the tracks were tougher and the competition closer. Today's drivers have never had it so easy in comparison.
Clark is considered by all around and certainly anyone with a hint of motoracing insight to be one of, if not thee most natural driver to have ever been in motorsport.
If he finished a race it was always in the Top3 for the most part in any of his fields! Infact in his F1 carer if he finished the race he was on pole, its single figures the amount of times he finished lower than 1st.
I find that opinion surprising from someone who you could believe to be a F1 fanatic.
Last edited:
Soldato
Oooooookay....
1957 German Grand Prix.
Watch, read, then come back and tell me that Fangio wasn't one of the greatest drivers of all time. As far as your points go:
Less competition - I'm not sure that you're right, also not sure that it's relevant even if you are.
Fewer races - but longer ones, coupled with the fact that he raced sportscars as well.
Always in the best car - he never made any secret of the fact that he'd chop and change to get the best wheels. Other drivers might have been more monogamous (Clark only ever raced for Lotus in F1, Moss always tried to go for British and would stick with Rob Walker even through the troublesome '59 campaign for example) but that doesn't diminish what Fangio did. Winning 47% of the GPs you entered is a statistic that is very unlikely to ever be matched, let alone bettered (Schumacher's stands at ~34% IIRC)
sunama said:
Why?
Jim Clark is certainly one of the greatest drivers ever. Chapman could have fitted a bathtub with an engine and wheels and Jimmy would have won with it. He won at Indy (first non-American in almost 50 years to do so), he won the '64 BTCC, he drove well in NASCAR, rallying, Le Mans....and the small matter of 25 GP wins from 72 starts (25 wins in races that counted towards the championship that is, he won plenty of non-championship GPs as well).
I'd be curious to know just how many people you'd place above Fangio and Clark. Senna is a given, obviously. So who else would you say is better?
***edit***
Tell you what sunama, I'll start you off. My top ten in no particular order:
Juan Fangio
Stirling Moss
Jim Clark
Gilles Villeneuve
Ayrton Senna
Alain Prost
Nigel Mansell
Michael Schumacher
Ronnie Peterson
Jackie Stewart
There's ten who I'd place well above Fred 'The Daddy™' Alonso in the all-time greats list. Honourable mentions to Mario Andretti, Dan Gurney, Jochen Rindt and Stefan Bellof as well.
Last edited:
Permabanned
- Joined
- 22 Nov 2010
- Posts
- 187
This thread is lol.
How anyone can think Hamilton doesnt deserve his place is sheer insanity.
Its competitive sport. When someone is ready for the bigtime, they are ready. End of.
Who cares how they got there? No one. Its how they perform. I find it most bizarre that someone can say that arguably the best racing driver in the world should have whiled away his time in something crappy like a Lotus... lol.
How anyone can think Hamilton doesnt deserve his place is sheer insanity.
Its competitive sport. When someone is ready for the bigtime, they are ready. End of.
Who cares how they got there? No one. Its how they perform. I find it most bizarre that someone can say that arguably the best racing driver in the world should have whiled away his time in something crappy like a Lotus... lol.
Associate
We have every right to say that your opinion is wrong though. That is a very strange viewpoint, he was a point away from winning his rookie season, and won his second season. What more could he have learned from driving for a **** team for a year or 2, scrabbling for points? And why would McLaren rent him out to a terrible team if he was more than capable of jumping straight into a race winning car?
There are many reasons to hate LH, yours is the strangest.
Sunama, you clearly don't have a clue about the history of F1. Having never seen the Villeneuve - Arnoux fight at Dijon in 79 fight until a couple of weeks ago shows that you don't care.
Last edited:
Soldato
If a team ever finds anyone as good as Hamilton they would give him a car in a heart beat.
And don't forget williams went to sign him up but BMW would not back Lewis..what a mistake that was.
And Lewis was so so so good in the lower classes he did not need to fight for a car in F1.
But lets take Alonso..he did bugger all in the lower classes but had to fight his way up in F1
And was even dropped to a test driver in 2002. So Hamilton do it all in the lower classes
and beat the lot and got loads of honours and some in F1
Most consecutive podiums from debut race: 9
Most consecutive podiums for a British driver: 9
Youngest driver to lead the World Championship: 22 years, 4 months, 8 days
Most wins in a debut season: 4
Most pole positions in a debut season: 6
Most points in a debut season: 109
Soldato
True.
A chance to become more humble rather than arrogant as he displayed in his title winning season?
We all have to start somewhere.
Soldato
Be fair Marc, he's a lot more palatable since Australia '09 and the backlash from that weekend.
I'd personally rate MSc higher than anyone.
Simply because he is the most complete F1 GP driver I have ever seen or heard of. He left no stone unturned in his quest to win. He even broke rules wherever he could in order to win. His will to win was incredible. If he broke rules to win, you can also imagine that he would've pushed the limits to win within the rules as well. (From the current crop of drivers, only Hamilton and Alonso have demonstrated this overwhelming desire to win, even if it means rules get broken).
I have no doubt that Senna was terrifically fast. For me he is the fastest driver, over a single lap and this is shown by the number of pole positions he achieved. My belief is that Gilles Villenueve could've been just as quick (over a single lap), in the right car, but we shall never know. Tthe best wet weather racing performance I've seen, has to be at Donnington 1993.
What I also rate very highly in MSc is that he took a huge risk to move to a team which had not won a title since 1979. For the best driver to move to such a team is a massive gamble.
He did this in an atmosphere where drivers had no loyalty to their teams and would either go to those who would pay the most money or those teams who offered the fastest car. The likes of Senna for example, moved from McLaren to Williams (acknowledged as the fastest car), in 1994, despite R.Dennis begging him to stay at McLaren. This was considered the norm. MSc came along and he said that he wanted to leave his his all-conquering Bennetton team and move to a team that was winning about 1 race/season. He was inspirational in making Ferrari great (again). Senna would never have done this, and I don't blame him.
MSc was not as fast as Senna over a single lap.
He did not operate like a computer, in the same way that Prost might have.
He did not have the ability to raise his game by several percentage points, like Mansell could, on his day.
He was not the fastest wet weather driver.
He was however, consistently fast across all the seasons he raced.
He also had the ability to get his team (management and subordinates), to rally to his cause.
In all the areas where MSc wasn't the best, he scored very high. I'm a stats man myself and his racing stats are incredible.
I think MSc's myth has been partially destroyed due to his 2nd career, but people should not forget that this was the guy who was consistent over many many years.
Senna, Prost and Mansell were great for around the 10 year mark. MSc was special for about 15 years.
MSc saw off the likes of D.Hill, J.Villeneuve, Hakkinnen, (who were all decent drivers) and finally came unstuck when he met Alonso. MSc was competitive in 1992, winning his first race, against the all-conquering FW14B (the same car which Mansell put on pole at Silverstone, on a dry track having gone about 2.5s-3s faster than the next non-Williams cars). MSc was also competitive in his final season in 2006 (finishing 2nd to Alonso). Few drivers can boast this sort of consistency.
For all the above reasons, for me, MSc is the most complete F1 driver (not Nascar, Indy or any other formula) I have ever seen.
Simply because he is the most complete F1 GP driver I have ever seen or heard of. He left no stone unturned in his quest to win. He even broke rules wherever he could in order to win. His will to win was incredible. If he broke rules to win, you can also imagine that he would've pushed the limits to win within the rules as well. (From the current crop of drivers, only Hamilton and Alonso have demonstrated this overwhelming desire to win, even if it means rules get broken).
I have no doubt that Senna was terrifically fast. For me he is the fastest driver, over a single lap and this is shown by the number of pole positions he achieved. My belief is that Gilles Villenueve could've been just as quick (over a single lap), in the right car, but we shall never know. Tthe best wet weather racing performance I've seen, has to be at Donnington 1993.
What I also rate very highly in MSc is that he took a huge risk to move to a team which had not won a title since 1979. For the best driver to move to such a team is a massive gamble.
He did this in an atmosphere where drivers had no loyalty to their teams and would either go to those who would pay the most money or those teams who offered the fastest car. The likes of Senna for example, moved from McLaren to Williams (acknowledged as the fastest car), in 1994, despite R.Dennis begging him to stay at McLaren. This was considered the norm. MSc came along and he said that he wanted to leave his his all-conquering Bennetton team and move to a team that was winning about 1 race/season. He was inspirational in making Ferrari great (again). Senna would never have done this, and I don't blame him.
MSc was not as fast as Senna over a single lap.
He did not operate like a computer, in the same way that Prost might have.
He did not have the ability to raise his game by several percentage points, like Mansell could, on his day.
He was not the fastest wet weather driver.
He was however, consistently fast across all the seasons he raced.
He also had the ability to get his team (management and subordinates), to rally to his cause.
In all the areas where MSc wasn't the best, he scored very high. I'm a stats man myself and his racing stats are incredible.
I think MSc's myth has been partially destroyed due to his 2nd career, but people should not forget that this was the guy who was consistent over many many years.
Senna, Prost and Mansell were great for around the 10 year mark. MSc was special for about 15 years.
MSc saw off the likes of D.Hill, J.Villeneuve, Hakkinnen, (who were all decent drivers) and finally came unstuck when he met Alonso. MSc was competitive in 1992, winning his first race, against the all-conquering FW14B (the same car which Mansell put on pole at Silverstone, on a dry track having gone about 2.5s-3s faster than the next non-Williams cars). MSc was also competitive in his final season in 2006 (finishing 2nd to Alonso). Few drivers can boast this sort of consistency.
For all the above reasons, for me, MSc is the most complete F1 driver (not Nascar, Indy or any other formula) I have ever seen.
Soldato
I think your slightly over estimating Shumacher there, stats aside he never really faced much in the way of competition, and when he did he bailed.
He proved that if you have the full backing of a team who would fight tooth and nail for your cause, a 2nd driver and tyres that no one else had access to you could conquer.
Theres no doubting he was a great driver, but the best, i cant say i agree.
The stats may make him the greatest but they dont show the whole picture.
He proved that if you have the full backing of a team who would fight tooth and nail for your cause, a 2nd driver and tyres that no one else had access to you could conquer.
Theres no doubting he was a great driver, but the best, i cant say i agree.
The stats may make him the greatest but they dont show the whole picture.
Soldato
And as I've tried to explain to you before, stats don't tell the whole story.
For example, raw statistics will tell you that Ronnie Peterson competed in 123 races, won 10 times and scored 206 points. A reasonable tally, but not out of sight - Damon Hill entered almost as many races (122, started 115 IIRC), but won 22 times and scored 360 points. But those raw statistics don't describe moments like this:
Pete Lyons, in a '93 issue of AutoWeek. Statistics can't tell you that sort of thing. Sights, sounds, words....that's what elevates Ronnie Peterson from some guy with ten wins to one of the all-time greats of the sport.
Amazing how fickle some people are. If he's comprehensively beaten by Rosberg next season, then maybe you can start saying stuff like that. Until then, why don't we wait and see? New tyres, KERS, strange new rear wing rule, no F-Duct and no double-diffuser....it's got the potential to throw up a few curveballs.
- Status