What makes a driver great?

ps3ud0 said:
Dont think its that hard to qualify what great means, but everyones interpretation is gonna be different. Guess an easy quantification is winning more than one WDC, thinks thats generally the most acceptable one...
Click to expand...

Think that is certainly an indicator but not sure that always works out Stirling Moss and Gilles Villeneuve are both often regarded as greats and neither won a DC.
 
WDC are only one factor.
Its a very tough question to answer really, you need to take into account sooo many things.

Length of time in the sport - The ability to keep getting a drive, and maintaining performance over a number of rule changes, tyres types, engine types, driver aids, etc

Race wins - Clearly you need to be winning races to be a true great!

WDC wins - A good indicator of maintaining performance over a year (although there are caveats!)

WDC position when not winning - Always being in contention, even if not winning can show a truly great driver. Especially when driving a poor, or unreliable car

Performance against team-mates - The only almost solid and stable benchmark over a year. Consistantly beating a "decent" driver over the season is a great indication

Pole Positions - Out and out pace, speed has to be considered here.

Qually position when not on pole - Days when a driver did not quite hook it up, where where they?

Points finishes - Great indication of race-craft and competance

Race finishes - Indicator of mechanical sympathy and control over their vehicle

Car setup/feeback/Car development - You can be the fastest man in the world, but if you cannot set up the car, you wont get anywhere!

Likeability/Media capability - Arguable here, but if a driver is not liked, it can reduce his options, and lower his potential achievments - Although a counter is that you might get overlooked for not being ruthless enough!

Wet driving capability - Shows up poor car control, and how brave a driver really is!

Dealing with adversity - Bouncing back from bad luck and poor results to perform again quickly


Even this is not an exhaustive list, for sure, but we cannot rely purely on WDC wins to decide who is best!


As a side note, I always find it odd how little the Prof gets talked about when comparing great drivers, perhaps some sort of indication in itself. Amazing when you look at his record of WDC wins and consistancy over his career.
 
Last edited:
I can't tell these days what separates "great" drivers from the rest ..... F1 tech these days is so advanced that its blurred these boundaries.

We all remember when Braun was "the" car of the season, the Ferrari's of Schumacher's time, Nigel Mansell's Williams and Ayrton Senna's McLaren. Each of those cars had tech the lower teams did not have or had an inferior version of as well as differing aerodynamic tweaks to their bodies.

It would be great if all the cars were created equal then it would truly be skill of the driver.

I dunno .... its so hard to tell really because you can't separate the F1 tech form the equation anymore.
 
Weazle said:
I dunno .... its so hard to tell really because you can't separate the F1 tech form the equation anymore.
Click to expand...

I think you can, you just need to work out the equation, and the weighting for each part and you might just come up with a value for each driver that allows you to rate them correctly.

Its never going to be easy, but it could be an interesting exercise!?
 
Merlin5 said:
In a way, Jensen is actually better than 'good' since we know he won a WDC. Some might say to win a WDC it would take a great driver. But he only won once and that was after many years of being in the sport. So to me, he's not quite great, but he's very, very good. At the moment, Lewis is similar until he can win a second WDC. These drivers are absolutely amazing to us of course, but alongside the drivers I mention below, they seem to be in a slightly different league.
Click to expand...

You cant compare Jenson or Lewis to Senna, Prost, and those "greats" even further back because the risks were completely different, the cars were unrecognisable and most of the tracks were also changed considerably if not completely new.

Its even harder when you consider the media these days, and how you can find out about any little thing you want which wasnt anywhere near as "all-encompasing " as it is now.

Whether who-ever "only" won one WDC, is demeaning a fantastic achievment . I dont think anyone would look at Damon Hill any different (or Schumi for that matter) if Adelaide '94 had ended differently and Schumi had only taken himself out, and DH had gone on to win 2 WDC's - after all nothing DH could have done differently in those circumstances. He was worthy of it whether the records show it or not.

Personally its more about how people present themselves rather than how many WDC's they win htat make them special.
 
I was at Spa when he raced. It was embarrassing.

But, in his defence, being a good test and development driver doesn't mean you need to be fast.
 
Skeeter said:
But, in his defence, being a good test and development driver doesn't mean you need to be fast.
Click to expand...

I understand where you are coming from but Im not 100% convinced thats true - after all any part you wish to mention will in all liklihood last a lot longer at slower speeds than at "full" racing speed.

(obviously dependant on the specific part, in itself a steering wheel isnt going to make the driver any faster / slower for example)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom