Who do you currently regard as the 3 greatest Formula 1 drivers and why? [Archive]

Rollo

6th September 2007, 01:35

1. Jackie Stewart - Triple World Champion and safety advocate. He had the testicular fortitude to stand up and tell the world that things were dangerous and then did something about it.

2. Sir Stirling Moss - Zero Times World Champion though should have been in1958. When Hawthorn pushed his car in Portugal, Moss argued on his behalf to the organisers. Moss' sporting attitude cost him race wins but he was and is a true gentleman.

3. Alain Prost - Four Times World Champion though should have been Seven. Lost in 1984 when the Monaco GP was only credited with half points and had it run to 75% completion Prost would have been World Champion.
In 1988 he outscored Senna but under the stupidity that was "points dropping" threw away points rather than DNFs
In 1990 Senna deliberately drove into him thus endangering his life and stealing the World Championship by criminal and unfair means.

ShiftingGears

6th September 2007, 08:41

3. Alain Prost - Four Times World Champion though should have been Seven. Lost in 1984 when the Monaco GP was only credited with half points and had it run to 75% completion Prost would have been World Champion.
In 1988 he outscored Senna but under the stupidity that was "points dropping" threw away points rather than DNFs
In 1990 Senna deliberately drove into him thus endangering his life and stealing the World Championship by criminal and unfair means.

I think it was Prost who was one of the people signalling to the pits to end the 1984 Monaco race. If if if. If Prost outscored Lauda in the other races under the points system he would've won.
In 1988 the points system was the same for everyone, and Senna scored more points.

Gilles Villeneuve - the most spectacular and talented formula one driver I've seen footage of or read about. "To Gilles, racing truly was a sport, which
is why he would never chop you. Gilles was the hardest ******* I ever raced against, but completely fair. If you'd beaten him to a corner, he accepted it and gave you room. Then he'd be right back at you at the next one! Gilles was a giant of a driver, yes, but he was also a great man." - Keke Rosberg

Jim Clark - super smooth, unbelievably talented and well natured. He was probably one of the unluckiest world champions but he was the dominant 60's driver.

My third favourite changes quite a lot.

Osella

10th September 2007, 01:16

In 1988 the points system was the same for everyone, and Senna scored more points.

Not quite true actually. To quote McLaren's then team manager Jo Ramirez "That year (1988) Ayrton won eight GP's, Alain won seven. In the end Alain scored 105 points, Ayrton had 94, but on the dropping-points rule Ayrton was champion by three points"

So, as you can see, Prost actually scored more points, but Senna was given the championship as he has more retirements (the best 12 of 16 races counted toward the drivers title). So Prost was more consistent, but lost the title scoring more points! Ironically enough, if Senna hadn't run into Williams' Jean-Louis Schlesser in Monza and prevented McLaren's clean-sweep of the year, he actually would have lost the title by winning that race!..

Personally I rank Michael Schumacher first, Prost second and Fangio third.
Michael top simply because he outdrove, outthought, outdeveloped, outstrategized and outraced his opponents, Prost was simply just blindingly quick, should have had more titles (1990 was a disgrace! And people complained about Schumachers driving, yet still hold Senna up as an idol of the sport!) and Fangio third because no matter how brilliant he was, he always jumped to the best car, didn't really show any loyalty, unlike Prost and Schumacher who made their teams the best, rather than the other way round (except 1993!!).

ShiftingGears

10th September 2007, 09:21

Not quite true actually. To quote McLaren's then team manager Jo Ramirez "That year (1988) Ayrton won eight GP's, Alain won seven. In the end Alain scored 105 points, Ayrton had 94, but on the dropping-points rule Ayrton was champion by three points"

So, as you can see, Prost actually scored more points, but Senna was given the championship as he has more retirements (the best 12 of 16 races counted toward the drivers title). So Prost was more consistent, but lost the title scoring more points! Ironically enough, if Senna hadn't run into Williams' Jean-Louis Schlesser in Monza and prevented McLaren's clean-sweep of the year, he actually would have lost the title by winning that race!..

Everyone knew how the points system worked. And Ayrtons best 12 results massed more points than Alains. So Ayrton scored more points than Alain, under that points system.

Garry Walker

10th September 2007, 16:03

Gilles Villeneuve - the most spectacular and talented formula one driver I've seen footage of or read about.

LOL. If he was so talented, why did he struggle against some of his teammates?

jens

10th September 2007, 22:39

So, as you can see, Prost actually scored more points, but Senna was given the championship as he has more retirements (the best 12 of 16 races counted toward the drivers title). So Prost was more consistent, but lost the title scoring more points! Ironically enough, if Senna hadn't run into Williams' Jean-Louis Schlesser in Monza and prevented McLaren's clean-sweep of the year, he actually would have lost the title by winning that race!..

How does that make sense? If Ayrton had won at Monza, he would have led 9-7 in the wins' contention. And that year it was basically clear that which driver scored more wins, won the title. Btw, the best 11 results counted... So Senna's 8 wins and 3 second places made up 90 points that counted in the WDC. Prost's 87 points that counted were a total sum of 7 wins and 4 second places.

What is funny that 1988 was the only year, when Senna had no retirements due to mechanical failures! Among his 3 non-finishes one was DQ (Brazil) and two were accidents (Monaco, Italy).

555-04Q2

11th September 2007, 12:18

1. Schumacher - his record and consistancy for 16 years speak for themselves. Yeah so he had a few incidents in his career, but every genius is flawed. No one has ever dominated F1 the way he did, not even the great Fangio.

2. Fangio - dominated the sport well into his 40's, an old man in my book!!! Consistant and brave, he was untouchable when he was in a groove.

3. Prost - a race master who let his racing do the talking and not his qualifying. He should have won more WDC, but 4 WDC and 51 wins is still a brilliant track record.

ShiftingGears

11th September 2007, 13:51

LOL. If he was so talented, why did he struggle against some of his teammates?

*One of the most talented, I should've said. It is impossible to gauge the most talented.
Reutemann beat him in his first complete debut season, yes, but Villeneuve only got better.

tsarcasm

13th September 2007, 20:21

Fangio - The tires were skinny and he was old and fat. 5 WDC's with out dying in a car, remarkable talent.

Senna - A Natural born star. He and the car were one.

Schumacher - No one has even pushed and pushed as hard as Michael. Today's drivers should emulate his approach.

**All great leaders/$$owners/and Drivers are schrude operators at times because they want to win.

Rindt, JYS, Clark, Gilles, Prost, are all great and probably posess better characters though...

D-Type

17th September 2007, 15:16

Not quite true actually. ~ if Senna hadn't run into Williams' Jean-Louis Schlesser in Monza and prevented McLaren's clean-sweep of the year, he actually would have lost the title by winning that race!
I don't think you understand the way it worked. It wasn't a case of 'dropping results' per se, it was a case of selecting the best n scores out of N races. So if n was 5 and N was 8, if after 7 races a driver had 2 DNFs, 4 second places and a sixth place and then went on to win the eighth race he would drop the sixth place and count 1 win and 4 second places, etc. So, if Senna had won in Italy it would have improved his score, not reduced it. Admittedly, if he had to drop a score to accommodate the 10 points then he wouldn't have improved his score by a full 10 points. Sit down with a pencil and paper and work it out!

The reason for the 'best n from n' rule was twofold.
1. Cars were less reliable so a driver's championship chances would not be punished by a car failure
2. It kept the championship open for longer so the organisers of late season races wouldn't lose out at the gate because the championship had already been decided.

D-Type

17th September 2007, 16:00

Now, let's try and answer this?

First a couple of questions:
Are we talking about a driver's performance In Formula 1? e.g. if considering Andretti, do we ignore his USAC, Indianapolis and Daytona wins? or in the case of Stirling Moss, his sports car performances in the Mille Miglia, Le Mans, Targa Florio and Nurburgring 1000km?
Is this limited to Formula 1, post 1950? e.g. for the likes of Chiron and Fagioli, should we consider prewar races?
Are we talking about best on track (e.g. Gilles Villeneuve), most successful (e.g. Schumacher), best personality (e.g. tony Brooks), most innate natural ability (e.g. Senna, Clark), most skillful after learning his trade (e.g. Graham Hill), greatest (combination of the preceding), or what?

Having got that out of the way, based on performances in World Championship races, I nominate:

1. Juan Manual Fangio - Seven Championships. And the respect and regard he received from his fellow drivers. They were not ashamed to rate themselves as "Compared to Fangio..."

2. Alain Prost. - 'Only' two (or was it three?) championships but it could so easily have been three more. Again he was considered 'the man to beat' by his fellow drivers, including Senna.

3. Michael Schumacher - Simply on the grounds that he has won more than any other driver and has the respect of his peers.

Ayrton Senna? - Suzuka 1990 disqualifies him from any consideration as a 'great' driver. Why? This is the only case where a driver has admitted publicly that he started the race with the plan: "If he gets ahead of me I will drive my car into his"

Now, if we base it on lifetime performances in all forms of racing by drivers who have driven in Formula 1, the order changes:

1. Tazio Nuvolari - Yes, he did compete in a couple of Formula 1 races in 1947-49 before the Championship was inaugurated. Look over his career and there are some epic performances - the 1935 German GP where he defeated the 'invincible' silver arrows in their own backyard; the Mille Miglia where he switched his lights off and shadowed Varzi over the mountains; the Donington GP where he hit a stag in practice and won the race despite driving with his ribs taped up, etc.

2. Fangio again - but you can include the drive to second place in the Mille Miglia with one wheel steering and his long distance South American Races.

3. A tie between Stirling Moss and Louis Chiron
Moss for his sports car performances and his successes with 'outclassed' cars.
Chiron for winning over such a long period from the 1927 Spanish GP to the 1954 Monte Carlo Rally with a few World Championship points gained when he was semi-retired.

A J Foyt - He would be up there if the Ontario GP had been for Formula 1 cars and not Formula 1 and Formula 5000. Simply because he is the greatest racer in any form of racing, apart strangely from Formula 1. Indianapolis, USAC dirt tracks, midgets, Sports cars (Le Mans and Sebring wins), etc.

BeansBeansBeans

17th September 2007, 22:40

A great post D-Type, but a couple of corrections. Fangio won 5 World Championships and Prost 4.

D-Type

18th September 2007, 19:42

A great post D-Type, but a couple of corrections. Fangio won 5 World Championships and Prost 4.
Doh! :mad:

Posting from work without checking

tsarcasm

19th September 2007, 00:34

I know not the answer...but did Fangio win early championships? Before the FIA sanctioned the Official WDC.

D-Type

19th September 2007, 10:54

I know not the answer...but did Fangio win early championships? Before the FIA sanctioned the Official WDC.No, it was simply brain fade. He won his first World Drivers' Championship in 1951 and his fifth in 1957.

Earlier championships were the European Drivers' Championship in the thirties and a World Manufacturers' Championship in the thirties. One of the best websites covering that era is The Golden Era of Grand Prix Racing (http://www.kolumbus.fi/leif.snellman/) - click to follow the link.

Formula 1 was introduced before the CSI inaugurated the World Drivers' Championship in 1950. The Formula was sanctioned by the CSI in 1946 and the first races run in 1947.

tsarcasm

27th September 2007, 08:52

thanks for the link :) great stuff!!

FIA

1st October 2007, 19:41

1. Senna
2. Schumacher
3. Stewart

Also mentioned:- Ascari, Fangio, Moss, Clark, G Hill, Rindt, lauda, Prost, Mansell & Hakkinen.

Mintexmemory

3rd October 2007, 15:15

1 Fangio
2 Clark
3 Lauda

Schumacher and Senna by their actions diminished the sport imo and I wouldn't mention them in the same breath as Moss, JYS, Rindt and Andretti

futuretiger9

6th October 2007, 14:32

1. Ayrton Senna - the man who elevated Formula 1 competition to a new level.

2. Jim Clark - a natural, and a humble person.

3. Juan Manuel Fangio - a wonderful competitor and ambassador, who commanded respect from his peers.

AAReagles

23rd October 2007, 22:18

Gilles Villeneuve - the most spectacular and talented formula one driver I've seen footage of or read about...

...Jim Clark - ...was probably one of the unluckiest world champions but he was the dominant 60's driver.

I'm inclined to agree with you in regards to Gilles. Having been fortunate enough to have watched his races while he was alive, one could not help but notice that his abilities stood out so much from other drivers more frequently than what might have been normally expected.

His talent was certainly recognized and appreciated world wide... by die-hard fans and so-so followers alike. As a motor racing journalist once implied, his presence always brought an atmosphere of adulation from the crowds. And that of course came with reason.

Hence I tend to believe that he had a greater struggle with uncompetitive cars than with teammates. His driving/determination was questionable at times, but then again Gilles had a tendancy to regard himself as a racer, rather than a points-collector.

As for J. Clark, I'm not sure that he was unlucky. Grant it, he should have been WDC on at least 2-3 other occasions, mechanical failure not withstanding. However he was on a team that was competitive more often than the rest of the pack, not to mention he showed well overseas, noteably the TASMAN and american open wheel series.

Anyhooo... back on topic...

my choices:

1) J. Clark - class act with talent. Translation: He wasn't like the pre-Madonna crybabies that the sport had been afflicted with since the early 80's . He was the epitome of a GP driver.

2) Gilles - surprise!.... well, it was kind of a toss up between him and Niki Lauda. Lauda having gained my admiration for not only returning so soon to the sport after the 76' German GP, but having taking a break from "retirement" to win the 1984 WDC.

3) flip-a-coin... Andretti or Moss oorrr..... Gurney ooorrrr..... Ickx.....

CCFanatic

23rd October 2007, 22:45

Michael Schumacher: Best racer of alll time. Nearly 100 wins in what is the most comptitieve era of F1. Agressive and sometimes dangerous.

Fernando Alonso: Great driver, who came from a country who only cared about 2 wheel racing. Agressive and fast.

Jacques Villenueve: Gasp.

D-Type

24th October 2007, 01:26

Surely a rather modern selection for 'of all time'.

Why do you say Schumacher competed in the most competitive era? The most high spending definitely but not the most competitive. In any recent year at most three makes of car have won races, normally only two. In some years in the past there were considerably more. I think the peak was probably 1983 with six different makes winning. Surely six potential winning cars on the grid must be more competitive than three?

AAReagles

24th October 2007, 20:36

... I think the peak was probably 1983 with six different makes winning. Surely six potential winning cars on the grid must be more competitive than three?

Indeed. How I miss those days.

futuretiger9

11th November 2007, 11:33

Surely a rather modern selection for 'of all time'.

I think the peak was probably 1983 with six different makes winning. Surely six potential winning cars on the grid must be more competitive than three?

You could argue that the most competitive era of F1 was between 1972 and 1977, although the overall quality of driver talent was perhaps not as great as 1962-1967 or 1988-1991.

1983 is one of the most "under-rated seasons" ever. I have the FIA review video, and the racing was fantastically competitive. Long Beach in particular that year was an absolute barnstormer.

ArrowsFA1

12th November 2007, 09:23

1983 is one of the most "under-rated seasons" ever. I have the FIA review video, and the racing was fantastically competitive. Long Beach in particular that year was an absolute barnstormer.
:up: When I'm looking through my season review videos on a quiet evening I invariably pick out 1983 to watch. The cars look great, particularly that Brabham BT52, and turbo power (for many) combined with reduced aero made them spectacular, particularly through Eau Rouge where Rosberg (no turbo) was perhaps the most spectacular of all :s mokin:

F1boat

18th November 2007, 13:41

:up: When I'm looking through my season review videos on a quiet evening I invariably pick out 1983 to watch. The cars look great, particularly that Brabham BT52, and turbo power (for many) combined with reduced aero made them spectacular, particularly through Eau Rouge where Rosberg (no turbo) was perhaps the most spectacular of all :s mokin:

How I "envy" you. My father couldn't have watched this races because F1 was considered capitalistic sport in my country.

To the topic:
1 M Shumacher
2 Fangio
3 Prost

My list is made on statistics, for I am surely not an expert and way too young (23) to judge about driving talent.

Bezza

31st December 2007, 13:48

3. Alain Prost - Four Times World Champion though should have been Seven. Lost in 1984 when the Monaco GP was only credited with half points and had it run to 75% completion Prost would have been World Champion.
In 1988 he outscored Senna but under the stupidity that was "points dropping" threw away points rather than DNFs
In 1990 Senna deliberately drove into him thus endangering his life and stealing the World Championship by criminal and unfair means.

I can't quite let that one on go! Seems Rollo isn't a Senna fan ;)

Monaco 1984 - Prost was leading but ordered the race to be stopped. In my opinion if he thought unsafe he should have pulled off the track and allowed everybody else to carry on. Senna, Bellof and even Rene Arnoux were catching him. So had it gone to at least 75% distance, he would have finished 3rd or 4th anyway. By losing the title at the final round, he really reaped what he sew at Monaco.

1988 - the rules were the same from the start and it would have a big effect on the mindframe before races. Had the points system been like it normally was both drivers would have gone into each race differently. To blame losing the title on a points system doesn't fit.

1990 - Well ok, you can have this one - but only if you give Senna the 1989 title for Prost drove into him in deliberate fashion as well. And then, Senna got restarted but the Frenchman at the head of the FIA chucked him out of the race on a technicality.

Who do I think is the best driver ever?

Senna. ;)

2nd: Fangio

3rd: Lauda

31st December 2007, 14:01

Monaco 1984 - Prost was leading but ordered the race to be stopped. In my opinion if he thought unsafe he should have pulled off the track and allowed everybody else to carry on. Senna, Bellof and even Rene Arnoux were catching him. So had it gone to at least 75% distance, he would have finished 3rd or 4th anyway. By losing the title at the final round, he really reaped what he sew at Monaco

Pat Symonds, who worked on Senna's Toleman at Monaco, is in Autosport this week, stating that the idea that Senna would have won at Monaco is a myth as Senna had smashed the suspension and it would not have lasted the full race distance.

Therefore, Senna winning at Monaco in 1984 if it were not for Prost getting the race stopped is a myth.

BTCC2

31st December 2007, 14:19

1. Michael Schumacher

2. Juan Manuel Fangio

3. Alain Prost

markabilly

31st December 2007, 16:11

This is so hard to say--For their era, it is easy to pick Fangio from the 1950's, Clark from the sixties, Stewart early 70's, and so forth. But with the advent of wings and then all the latest demands on physical ability to withstand the g-forces and smacking, it is very unlikely that Fangio would have been competitive at all in the 1980 through 2008 era when he was of the age he was when he won his championships.

Hard to say about Clark. What made him so great was his feel for the car at the high speed corners and his well known ability to just take what was given and go fast (or inability to set up a car as some said back then), but with the advent of wings of the modern era, where the higher the speed, the more downforce and traction in faster corners means that very magic and delicate touch for high speed cornering would not be such a premium.

Although if Mario Andretti was any indication, then maybe that would not have been much of a problem for Clark, but Mario was perhaps the driver with the most ability to drive competitively in all sorts of cars who won a WDC, yet the year he won the WDC, he said that driving the F1 car was more like driving a go-kart rather than driving the cars when they had no wings, and the earlier cars required much more skill and touch, then to simply brake hard, point and then slam the gas on....then there was the semi-racing movie "Speedway" where he discussed all the problems of wings, g-forces and how tough it was to drive the modern cars because of the physical demands and need for quick reactions

Tazio

31st December 2007, 19:21

1 Fangio
2 Stewart
3 Schumacher*

* denotes that Mike's name in the official f1 record books will never appear with an * after it.
In perpetuity!

SGWilko

31st December 2007, 19:29

1 Fangio
2 Stewart
3 Schumacher*

* denotes that Mike's name in the official f1 record books will never appear with an * after it.
In perpetuity!

:laugh:

Dave B

31st December 2007, 19:36

Senna, Schumacher, Stewart - but I'm buggered if I'm putting them in order.

Bezza

31st December 2007, 21:13

Pat Symonds, who worked on Senna's Toleman at Monaco, is in Autosport this week, stating that the idea that Senna would have won at Monaco is a myth as Senna had smashed the suspension and it would not have lasted the full race distance.

Therefore, Senna winning at Monaco in 1984 if it were not for Prost getting the race stopped is a myth.

This is not important as Senna was catching Prost and Prost got the race stopped because he didn't want to be beaten by (at the time) a rookie. In the end this cost him the championship - neither Prost nor Senna knew of this suspension damage.

TonyO

31st December 2007, 21:30

Pat Symonds, who worked on Senna's Toleman at Monaco, is in Autosport this week, stating that the idea that Senna would have won at Monaco is a myth as Senna had smashed the suspension and it would not have lasted the full race distance.

Therefore, Senna winning at Monaco in 1984 if it were not for Prost getting the race stopped is a myth.

I read very recently, although I don't remember where, that Bellof was actually catching Senna faster than Senna was catching Prost. As someone said earlier, if if if...

If only Bellof hadn't taken that stupid chance at Eau Rouge, we might all be discussing him in this conversation.

Tony

Valve Bounce

31st December 2007, 22:34

Hey!! you guys forget Lewis Hamilton.

Eki

31st December 2007, 23:03

Shouldn't this be in the "History and Nostalgia" section if you want to talk about M Schumacher, Senna, Prost, Fangio, Moss etc.?

Cozzie

31st December 2007, 23:59

Clark, Fangio, Schumacher and Rosemeyer (of the pre-war era) but I cannot put them into order!

Roamy

1st January 2008, 02:16

Gilles Villenueve - Raw Speed
Mario Andretti - versitality and talent
Aryton Senna - talent

Now I did not go back as far as fangio who rates but I had to draw the line somewhere

oh raw talent - bad break in life -----Ronnie Peterson

SGWilko

1st January 2008, 12:13

Hey!! you guys forget Lewis Hamilton.

Turn it in Valve, the boy is still wet behind the ears, and barely out of nappies. ;)

maxu05

1st January 2008, 12:24

My picks,
Michael Schumacher - 7 titles speaks for itself.
Fangio - legend driver
Jack Brabham - The only driver to ever win the title in his own car.

CNR

1st January 2008, 13:59

http://www.jackbrabham.com/

the BT19 – which he drove to victory in 1966. The following year the Brabham team won its second successive world championship when New Zealander Denny Hulme drove the BT20 to victory.

To think he sold his team to Bernard Charles "Bernie" Ecclestone
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Ecclestone

ArrowsFA1

2nd January 2008, 11:37

To think he sold his team to Bernard Charles "Bernie" Ecclestone
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Ecclestone
Not quite :dozey: Jack Brabham retired at the end of 1970 and sold his team to Ron Tauranac, who then sold it on to Bernie a couple of years later.

Ranger

2nd January 2008, 11:47

In no real order:
Fangio
Clark
Schumacher

Then Senna and Prost. Then Stewart.

D-Type

2nd January 2008, 12:05

Shouldn't this be in the "History and Nostalgia" section if you want to talk about M Schumacher, Senna, Prost, Fangio, Moss etc.?
It is.

Garry Walker

2nd January 2008, 15:16

Gilles Villenueve - Raw Speed

LMAO. Gilles was beaten on raw speed by more than one teammate. One of the most overrated drivers of all time.

ArrowsFA1

2nd January 2008, 16:28

One of the most overrated drivers of all time.
Perhaps, although his peers and team-mates had a different view.

Jody Scheckter:
"Gilles is...the fastest Formula One driver nowadays."

Carlos Reutemann:
"One year in Formula 1 was enough for him to become one of the fastest drivers in the world."

Keke Rosberg:
"He was the greatest ******* I could race against and that I ever met, but he was absolutely fair. A great driver."

Garry Walker

2nd January 2008, 16:47

Perhaps, although his peers and team-mates had a different view.

Jody Scheckter:
"Gilles is...the fastest Formula One driver nowadays."

Carlos Reutemann:
"One year in Formula 1 was enough for him to become one of the fastest drivers in the world."

Keke Rosberg:
"He was the greatest ******* I could race against and that I ever met, but he was absolutely fair. A great driver."

It is a damn shame that facts outweigh opinions.

D-Type

2nd January 2008, 17:36

It is a damn shame that facts outweigh opinions.Please tell us when Gilles was outperformed by a team mate with a similar car. Obviously, you have to exclude the first two or three races in a team when he was feeling his way.

Garry Walker

2nd January 2008, 18:17

Please tell us when Gilles was outperformed by a team mate with a similar car. Obviously, you have to exclude the first two or three races in a team when he was feeling his way.

1978 - Carlos Reutemann beat Gilles, supposedly top 3 of all times due to his raw speed, in qual 12:4.
Points wise it was 48:17 for Reutemann and it wasnt due to difference in mechanical problems, that was 3:2.
Reutemann in 1977 had been destroyed by Lauda, bigtime.

In 1979, with Schekter being a newcomer to Ferrari, GV managed to outqualify him only 8:7 and ended up losing points wise. The year after that, with Ferrari sucking bigtime and JS losing motivation and drive, only then did GV manage to start beating Schekter.

Even out of 6 wins GV achieved in his career, the first one at Canada in 1978 was inherited due to Jariers oil leak, the USA east gp in 1979 he won due to Jones`car suffering a mechanical problem, the Monaco win in 1981 was inherited due to Jones suffering problems and the Jarama one the same year was inherited again due to problems for Jones.
So 4 lucky wins out of 6.

GV is probably the most overrated driver in F1 history and by a huge margin.

Bezza

2nd January 2008, 18:44

ArrowsFA1

3rd January 2008, 09:44

GV is probably the most overrated driver in F1 history and by a huge margin.
You give the stats against the likes of Reutemann and Scheckter, and yet those same drivers considered GV to one of the fastest drivers they raced against, as did many of his peers. Add to that Keke Rosberg's comment and that's enough for me.

As for "4 lucky wins out of 6"...take any driver you care to mention and you could say much the same. Fact is, for much of his F1 career GV rarely had a car capable of winning races. Yes, in 1979 when Ferrari introduced the 312T4 the car was a winner, and Gilles won its first two races, leading Scheckter home, but other than that we never got the chance to see what he might have done with a car that was the anything like the class of the field.

His 1981 victories, in particular, were remarkable. In Monaco Pironi qualified 2.5s slower in the same car, and was a lap down at the finish. In Spain GV only qualified 7th, but Pironi was 0.7s slower in 13th, and ended the race 4 laps behind. The 126CK was recognised as being an awful car, and Pironi's performances showed where the car should have been, but Villeneuve won 2 races with it.

I agree with Garry in a sense. He was a bloody quick driver but he was "too brave" and inconsistent. Everybody loves the way he chucked his way around the corners and for being brave, but in the end this cost him his life. Maybe with a few more seasons experience he would have settled down.
I think this is a misconception about Villeneuve. He was as capable of 'managing' a race as anyone (Jarama being an example), but because of the cars at his disposal invariably he had to push harder to get anywhere near the front. Had he been in a Williams in 1980/1, for example, we would have seen his consistency and combined with his speed it probably would have made for a winning combination.

He was also more interested in racing than championships. As he once said: "How the hell can you drive a race car, fight with people - and think all the time about points for a bloody championship? How can you settle for a 'safe' third place or something, because it's four points...? Jesus, people like that should be accountants, not racing drivers..."

3rd January 2008, 09:54

"How the hell can you drive a race car, fight with people - and think all the time about points for a bloody championship? How can you settle for a 'safe' third place or something, because it's four points...? Jesus, people like that should be accountants, not racing drivers..."[/I]

He may well have been the fastest 'reaction-time' driver, but that qoute is all the evidence needed to prove that he was not a complete driver or, for that matter, even a very bright driver.

That remark is actually the remark of a moron.

SGWilko

3rd January 2008, 11:07

He may well have been the fastest 'reaction-time' driver, but that qoute is all the evidence needed to prove that he was not a complete driver or, for that matter, even a very bright driver.

That remark is actually the remark of a moron.

Well, yes, you make a fair point. But a gutsy 'give it all' driver is a crowd pleaser.

I would prefer purist to moron, as to class Gilles as an imbecille is a little below the belt....

Bezza

3rd January 2008, 13:09

Definitely a gutsy brave driver, but he did take it too far, and in the end this cost him his life.

D-Type

3rd January 2008, 13:31

He may well have been the fastest 'reaction-time' driver, but that qoute is all the evidence needed to prove that he was not a complete driver or, for that matter, even a very bright driver.

That remark is actually the remark of a moron.
I think this is a measure of the way that our sport and the perception of it has evolved.

At Silverstone in 1950, every driver on the field was thinking something like "I intend to finish as high in this race as I can" or in the case of some of the amateurs simply: "I am going to enjoy myself driving my car fast". I doubt that any of them were consciously aware that they were competing for the World Drivers' Championship.

Nowadays the Championship has become an end in itself and the 'point counter' mentality has evolved.

I'm old-fashioned and think that a driver's motive should still be to compete in a race and the Championship points should be a secondary consideration. I can't agree that a driver who wants to race is a moron or an incomplete driver.

wedge

3rd January 2008, 14:51

He was also more interested in racing than championships. As he once said: "How the hell can you drive a race car, fight with people - and think all the time about points for a bloody championship? How can you settle for a 'safe' third place or something, because it's four points...? Jesus, people like that should be accountants, not racing drivers..."

GV satisfied the purists but as we have seen time and time again that mentality doesn't win you races, let alone championships.

Roamy

3rd January 2008, 15:46

true wedge but I can't wait til the next GV comes around. Probably the most careful driver was Jackie Stewart - If I recall he only had one bad accident and was not injured in that wreck either. Also maybe is race per win ratio is among the best. but if you never got to witness GV drive in person then you have a big void!!

Bagwan

3rd January 2008, 15:47

He may well have been the fastest 'reaction-time' driver, but that qoute is all the evidence needed to prove that he was not a complete driver or, for that matter, even a very bright driver.

That remark is actually the remark of a moron.

Gilles drove it like he stole it .
I've got a buddy who ran the taxi/interference car for Gilles back in the day , when insurance scams fed his career .
Second wasn't an option .

Whilst complaining about this , he also ran a dutiful , respectable #2 on his car when first at Ferrari .
So , don't tell me he's stupid just because he'd prefer to win than have to protect a points position , because we know he was prepared to do his duty for his team .

They said he was fast .
They said he raced hard .
They said he raced fair .

When Pironi passed him , he had proven all those things in that race .
He slowed for the 2 car camera shot , and all those things came to haunt him .

Second wasn't an option .

AAReagles

3rd January 2008, 20:58

Definitely a gutsy brave driver, but he did take it too far, and in the end this cost him his life.

No doubt that was a factor in his Zolder accident, along with his feelings of betrayal from Pironi. However, there was also the presence of 'two-lap wonder' qualifying tyres then. Which he was outspoken about.

In some sense Gilles had prophesied his own fate during an interview weeks before the crash, in which he declared the potential dangers of qualifying under those conditions; stating that necessary risks were involved in order to achieve a good grid position, forcing drivers such as himself to "banzai it."

wedge

3rd January 2008, 23:51

Something that people tend to forget was that when he first raced in F1 in acquired the nickname 'Air Canada' because of his many incidents - in one crash debris killed spectators in Fuji (can't remember the year exactly).

Don't think he made too many friends in the paddock that year.

ShiftingGears

4th January 2008, 01:55

markabilly

4th January 2008, 02:35

He may well have been the fastest 'reaction-time' driver, but that qoute is all the evidence needed to prove that he was not a complete driver or, for that matter, even a very bright driver.

That remark is actually the remark of a moron.

No, it is the remark of a real racer, something missing from the current group of accountants on the track, such as D "it is too dangerous w/o TC" Couthard, and anyone who thinks it is moronic needs to avoid mirrors.... :D

He was also more interested in racing than championships. As he once said: "How the hell can you drive a race car, fight with people - and think all the time about points for a bloody championship? How can you settle for a 'safe' third place or something, because it's four points...? Jesus, people like that should be accountants, not racing drivers..."

Amen, brother.

Where are such drivers today?
None to be found in 2007 F1.

ArrowsFA1

4th January 2008, 09:07

In some sense Gilles had prophesied his own fate during an interview weeks before the crash, in which he declared the potential dangers of qualifying under those conditions; stating that necessary risks were involved in order to achieve a good grid position, forcing drivers such as himself to "banzai it."
Or as he said a few years earlier "if it's near the end of qualifying, and you're trying for pole maybe, then I guess you can squeeze the fear..." :(

Niki Lauda said this of him: "Gilles was a perfect racing driver, I think. He had the best talent of all of us. In any car he was quick - he didn't drive for points, but to win races. I liked him even more than I admired him. He was the best - and the fastest - racing driver in the world."

wedge

4th January 2008, 14:00

No, it is the remark of a real racer, something missing from the current group of accountants on the track, such as D "it is too dangerous w/o TC" Couthard, and anyone who thinks it is moronic needs to avoid mirrors.... :D

Amen, brother.

Where are such drivers today?
None to be found in 2007 F1.

Your best friend AKA Lewis Hamilton! :D

He "choked" on the WDC because he wouldn't settle for a simple points finish in the last couple of races.

markabilly

4th January 2008, 14:42

Your best friend AKA Lewis Hamilton! :D

He "choked" on the WDC because he wouldn't settle for a simple points finish in the last couple of races.

You mean my very best friend, the Golden Savior of all, the Protector of Ron's intergrity,and the Grand Champion Choker of all time, who choked because he could not take the pressure, because he drove himself off the pit road, and when the money was really on the table, went off-roading and shifted himself into neutral in Brazil without sufficient gonads or backbone to admit same?

..........Well dream on......that is what dreams are made for.... :D

Roamy

4th January 2008, 17:53

Or as he said a few years earlier "if it's near the end of qualifying, and you're trying for pole maybe, then I guess you can squeeze the fear..." :(

Niki Lauda said this of him: "Gilles was a perfect racing driver, I think. He had the best talent of all of us. In any car he was quick - he didn't drive for points, but to win races. I liked him even more than I admired him. He was the best - and the fastest - racing driver in the world."

Thanks Arrows
This pretty well sums it up - many are to young or to disconnected to understand what a great talent and human being Gilles was.!!

AAReagles

4th January 2008, 20:05

... many are too young or to disconnected to understand what a great talent and human being Gilles was.!!

I think that a generation gap is indeed part of the reason there is a divided opinion on Gilles, especially when compared to drivers who came after him.

Also, considering how well and reliable Ferrari ran in the past 10 or so years, compared to Gilles tenure with the team, there is some envy (from us Gilles fans) towards drivers who were fortunate enough to become employed with Ferrari while it was experiencing considerable success....

...As there is some envy from non-Gilles fans, who probably find it difficult as to why some of us here admire a driver who had won only 6 races, and has been out of the scene for over 25 years.

No doubt, those of us who followed racing back in those days (1980s) could not help but imagine what Gilles would have accomplished with McLaren. As that team, aside from Williams, was clearly the dominant team then - providing WCs for Lauda, Prost & Senna.

For those of you who might not be aware, Gilles had stated (after Imola 1982) that McLaren was perhaps his best choice in the future, regarding his dedication would be better appreciated there, as opposed to Ferrari.

Personally, for myself, my pondering of Gilles was answered by his son's accomplishments. He might not have won 7 WDC titles, but at some point he would have won his share of races/championships. As well as the Indianapolis 500, which was another race he expressed interest in, that his son won, coming back from a lap behind, in a car... appropriately registered as #27.

philipbain

4th January 2008, 20:07

Nuvolari, Clark, Senna. Enough said.

Though come to think of it Nuvolari never drove in F1, only pre-war Grands Prix before F1 had been invented. so i'd have to go for Fangio, a driver with fabulous control and grace in an era where such qualities were what were absolutely required

Garry Walker

9th January 2008, 15:05

I agree with Garry in a sense. He was a bloody quick driver but he was "too brave" and inconsistent. Everybody loves the way he chucked his way around the corners and for being brave, but in the end this cost him his life. Maybe with a few more seasons experience he would have settled down.

But he wasnt bloody quick. His driving style attracted people, and so did his death. Those 2 things are distracting from reality, that he was a very good driver, but not an all-time great.

You give the stats against the likes of Reutemann and Scheckter, and yet those same drivers considered GV to one of the fastest drivers they raced against, as did many of his peers. Add to that Keke Rosberg's comment and that's enough for me.
So opinions and emotions outweight facts? In what crazy world are you living in? If Goebbels, Himmler and Bormann had told you that Hitler is the greatest and most honest person in world, would you have believed them? Because it sure does seem that way.
I gave facts (no emotional bias in facts) which showed how Reutemann destroyed Villeneuve, now tell me how many all-time great have been destroyed by their teammates like that?
Then Gilles was also beaten by Schekter. So thats two years in running he gets beaten. And he wasnt beaten due to reliability problems, he was beaten due to being outraced.

As for "4 lucky wins out of 6"...take any driver you care to mention and you could say much the same. Nope. 2/3 of his wins were lucky, how many others could that be said about?

Fact is, for much of his F1 career GV rarely had a car capable of winning races. Yes, in 1979 when Ferrari introduced the 312T4 the car was a winner, and Gilles won its first two races, leading Scheckter home, but other than that we never got the chance to see what he might have done with a car that was the anything like the class of the field.
In 1978, Reutemann managed to win 4 times with the Ferrari, where was the Oh so great Gilles? Yep, he had one lucky win.
Ferrari was also clearly the best car in 1979.
GV didnt take full use of it.

His 1981 victories, in particular, were remarkable. In Monaco Pironi qualified 2.5s slower in the same car, and was a lap down at the finish. In Spain GV only qualified 7th, but Pironi was 0.7s slower in 13th, and ended the race 4 laps behind. The 126CK was recognised as being an awful car, and Pironi's performances showed where the car should have been, but Villeneuve won 2 races with it. No, pironi drove ****ly. No one can drive over the limit of the car. DP was simply doing a bad job with it, but that said, it wasnt a very good car. His 2 wins were lucky though and due to problems for others. Great wins? yes. But Schumacher and Senna had many more wins like that. Many more.

Had he been in a Williams in 1980/1, for example, we would have seen his consistency and combined with his speed it probably would have made for a winning combination.
He had cars totally capable of winning many times, but then he wasnt able to do the job with them that was required. He had the best car in 1979, what did he do?

He was also more interested in racing than championships. As he once said: "How the hell can you drive a race car, fight with people - and think all the time about points for a bloody championship? How can you settle for a 'safe' third place or something, because it's four points...? Jesus, people like that should be accountants, not racing drivers..."

If he was so interested in winning a particular race, why did he win so few of them and often get beaten by his teammates, considering he was prepared to take so many more risks?

Thanks Arrows
This pretty well sums it up - many are to young or to disconnected to understand what a great talent and human being Gilles was.!!

I could argue about Gilles being a great human being. I have heard it plenty that he didnt exactly treat his wife too well and used to have sex with quite many other women during his marriage.

SGWilko

9th January 2008, 15:19

I could argue about Gilles being a great human being. I have heard it plenty that he didnt exactly treat his wife too well and used to have sex with quite many other women during his marriage.

:laugh: You seem to be describing a great many male adults who live a playboy life..........

Garry Walker

9th January 2008, 15:23

:laugh: You seem to be describing a great many male adults who live a playboy life..........

So cheating on your spouse is something to be proud of? As long as you are single, **** as many people as you want, but once you are married, then things change.

SGWilko

9th January 2008, 15:36

but once you are married, then things change.

Yes, how very true, and that certainly is how I chose to live my married life. I was brought up with respect and fidelity etc.

Not everyone is though, and this is by no means a perfect world. The amount of single parent families is testament to the weak will of many people.

Was Adam not tempted and did he not pick the apple?

Oh dear, we seem to have forgotten this is an F1 forum.....sorry. ;)

ArrowsFA1

9th January 2008, 15:37

But he wasnt bloody quick.
So how do you explain away Lauda's view?

So opinions and emotions outweight facts?
That's not what I've said, but equally the opinions of those who raced alongside GV should not be dismissed so easily IMHO.

Great wins? yes. But Schumacher and Senna had many more wins like that. Many more.
And they had many more races in which to achieve those wins, and better and far more reliable cars with which to do so.

He had the best car in 1979, what did he do?
He finished four points behind his team leader who also became the WDC that year. He won three races (the same as Scheckter). He gained one pole position (the same as Scheckter). He had six fastest laps (to Scheckter's 0). He led 308 laps (to Scheckter's 170). He had 7 podium finishes (to Scheckter's 6).

SGWilko

9th January 2008, 15:39

He finished four points behind his team leader who also became the WDC that year. He won three races (the same as Scheckter). He gained one pole position (the same as Scheckter). He had six fastest laps (to Scheckter's 0). He led 308 laps (to Scheckter's 170). He had 7 podium finishes (to Scheckter's 6).

Just the facts man. They speak louder than opinions - apparently. ;)

9th January 2008, 15:45

He finished four points behind his team leader who also became the WDC that year.

Had Enzo had the confidence in Villenueve (which is very different from affection, which he undoubtedly had), then Scheckter would never have been granted Number One/Team Leader status.

1979 showed that Villenueve was capable of being a team-leader in the future, but 1978 hadn't.

Unlike Senna, Prost, Schumacher and Piquet (although Lauda was perhaps not 'in the zone in 79), who turned up and instantly were seen as Number Ones.

It is there that the 'legend' of Villenueve is flawed.

However, what he did in his private life (if he did) is totally irrelevant.

I've never cheated on my partner, nor would do, but unfortunately that did me feck all good when Enzo was looking for drivers.

Garry Walker

9th January 2008, 15:52

So how do you explain away Lauda's view?
Said after his death? Those opinions sure are never clouded with emotional bias.

That's not what I've said, but equally the opinions of those who raced alongside GV should not be dismissed so easily IMHO.
So facts outweight opinions or vice-versa? Reutemann beat GV as one would expect a world champ to do to an average driver, but CR wasnt even a champion.

And they had many more races in which to achieve those wins, and better and far more reliable cars with which to do so.

Senna and Schumacher both showed far more in their first 4-5 years than Gilles, for example they didnt get beaten by their teammates.

He finished four points behind his team leader who also became the WDC that year. And how did JS become the team leader at Ferrari, where he was newcomer, whereas GV started his 3rd year with the team? Someone in this thread apologized for GV saying I should discount his first 3-4 races for a new team. JS sure didnt seem to have a problem with that.

He won three races (the same as Scheckter). He gained one pole position (the same as Scheckter). He had six fastest laps (to Scheckter's 0). He led 308 laps (to Scheckter's 170). He had 7 podium finishes (to Scheckter's 6). And what matters in the end are points, not fastest laps or poles. Fastest laps especially are irrelevant, just look how few fastest laps Senna had. Why? because when others were setting fastest laps, he was already far ahead and leading and not pushing.
JS beat GV in equal cars and one could hardly say JS was the best driver in F1 at that time.

ArrowsFA1

9th January 2008, 16:11

And what matters in the end are points...
Would I be right in guessing that you don't rate the likes of Stirling Moss, Ronnie Peterson or Chris Amon very highly then?

Roamy

9th January 2008, 16:23

As I recall Ferrari basically gifted the title to Jody when left a even table GV would have won the title that year.

9th January 2008, 16:33

As I recall Ferrari basically gifted the title to Jody when left a even table GV would have won the title that year.

Yes, but why did Ferrari 'gift' it to Jody?

ArrowsFA1

9th January 2008, 16:34

And how did JS become the team leader at Ferrari, where he was newcomer, whereas GV started his 3rd year with the team?
Well, when Scheckter was signed he was a proven winner with 6 years of F1 experience in three different teams behind him. Gilles, on the other hand, was in his first full season of F1 and yet to win a GP. He did so in the final race of the 1978 season and that win effectively secured his place at Ferrari for 1979. Without it there is a good chance he would have been looking for employment elsewhere.

SGWilko

9th January 2008, 16:40

It is a damn shame that facts outweigh opinions.

So facts outweight opinions or vice-versa?

Let me guess, you used to be indecisive, but you just aren't sure anymore? ;)

ioan

9th January 2008, 17:16

:laugh: You seem to be describing a great many male adults who live a playboy life..........

Does that make them great human beings?!

ioan

9th January 2008, 17:20

SGWilko

9th January 2008, 17:29

Does that make them great human beings?!

What do you think? I think it shows them as weak and flawed.

SGWilko

9th January 2008, 17:30

ArrowsFA1

9th January 2008, 18:00

Drivers that died on track seem to have a fanatic support from emotional people around here.
Of course there's an element of lost potential when a driver dies, but my admiration for Gilles Villeneuve has nothing to do with the fact he died on track. It is based on what I saw of him, and read in contemporary race reports, and saw on tv, when he was alive.

Unfortunately I only got to see him race myself on few of occasions; the Race of Champions at Brands Hatch may have been the first time, and then there were a handful of British GP's I attended and saw him around the pits & paddock.

Far more important than any statistics are the opinions of his peers, who were also his rivals. These are men who set out to beat GV at every opportunity, and rarely admitted that anyone was better or faster, than themselves.

9th January 2008, 18:11

Far more important than any statistics are the opinions of his peers, who were also his rivals.

Ridiculous.

The Championship title, which is a statistic of the seasons racing, is the only important thing in Formula One and is decided by who scores the most points, not who has the most nice things said about them.

Anyone who believes that opinions of other drivers has anything other than sentimental value is watching the wrong sport.

If you want a contest where popularity is important, go watch Big Brother.

Osella

9th January 2008, 20:33

Drivers that died on track seem to have a fanatic support from emotional people around here. To the extent that a driver that was beaten by several other drivers while driving the same car is considered to be one of the best ever!

As Arrows said, it's to do with the potential argument...like George Best for instance.
Imagine what Jean Alesi would be had he died in 1991 for example....! Surely the greatest ever!...
Likewise, Stefan Bellof is another who is often forgotten about, but if you look at what he did he was very possibly as good as Villeneuve, especially when you see his Group C performances.

I think the Gilles case is a lot to do with the fact that he was the first top driver from his coutry in F1, and there is a lot of partisan support in particular, he was also a show-off like Peterson, so that always gets people's attention. But as one of the 3 greatest ever? Not even close. Car control, determination possibly, but to be the greatest is far more than just those factors.

D-Type

10th January 2008, 00:56

Ridiculous.

The Championship title, which is a statistic of the seasons racing, is the only important thing in Formula One and is decided by who scores the most points, not who has the most nice things said about them.

Anyone who believes that opinions of other drivers has anything other than sentimental value is watching the wrong sport.

If you want a contest where popularity is important, go watch Big Brother.I disagree.

The objective in a race is to win
A champion should be the driver who most successfully meets that objective, i.e. the one who is the best at winning a seriesof races.
A points system is a means to an end, a means to evaluate who is the best at trying to win. It is not an end in itself.
If you want to establish a ranking, then a points system is an end in itself, e.g. football leagues, who gets places on Bernie's charter flights, etc.

Thw question is "Who is the greatest driver?" It is not "Who is the best accumulator of points".

Bruce McLaren scored more points than Jack Brabham in Cooper cars, but it is absolutely ridiculous to say, as some statistical websites do, that he was the most successful, or best, Cooper driver when Brabham won two Championships and seven GPs while McLaren won three GPs.

ArrowsFA1

10th January 2008, 09:08

If you want a contest where popularity is important, go watch Big Brother.
My point has nothing to do with popularity. It is about the recognition among GV's peers that, as one of them said, "he is the fastest of all of us". That's a recognition of ability and talent not popularity, and it's a tribute rarely conferred by intensely competitive people on a rival.

Garry Walker

10th January 2008, 11:50

Would I be right in guessing that you don't rate the likes of Stirling Moss, Ronnie Peterson or Chris Amon very highly then?
Moss I rate highly. He achieved significantly more than gilles and was far better.
Peterson was very talented, but far too inconsistant.
Amon was good, but nothing special.

I have also made a number of points that you have left unanswered.

As I recall Ferrari basically gifted the title to Jody when left a even table GV would have won the title that year.

bull****. JS got his title fair and square by outracing and outthinking Gilles. In anycase, if GV was so good as you make him out to be, wouldnt he have had an easy ride over someone like JS. So why didnt he, not even in qualifying?

Far more important than any statistics are the opinions of his peers, who were also his rivals.

Probably the stupidest thing I have seen on this forum for a long time.
So if Reutemann says Gilles is the best driver around, then beats gilles 12:4 in qualfying and scores 3x more points, which matters more? Answer this please.
Get it in your head - Opinions are biased, FACTS not nearly as much. The emotional support for gilles was always amazing, but the driver behind it all was not as impressive as made out to be, which is shown by the fact he was beaten by two teammates in row, neither of whom could be said was the best driver around that time.
How many times did Fangio, Senna, Schumacher, Prost did get beaten by teammates, let alone get destroyed bigtime by non-WC teammates?

My point has nothing to do with popularity. It is about the recognition among GV's peers that, as one of them said, "he is the fastest of all of us".

If he was so damn fast, why did he get beaten two years in row by different teammates, and pretty badly by one of them? Or is that irrelevant, because that teammate praised Gilles after his death?

ShiftingGears

10th January 2008, 12:06

As Arrows said, it's to do with the potential argument...like George Best for instance.
Imagine what Jean Alesi would be had he died in 1991 for example....! Surely the greatest ever!...
Likewise, Stefan Bellof is another who is often forgotten about, but if you look at what he did he was very possibly as good as Villeneuve, especially when you see his Group C performances.

Group C is not F1 though. And especially considering that Jacky Ickx wasnt exactly driving fantastically when he retired from F1.

jens

10th January 2008, 12:25

Garry Walker, why do you have such a low opinion about Didier Pironi? In 1981 he was very unlucky - whenever he was fighting for podium, the car let him down and in fact he even didn't finish on podium.

In some way he was similar to Gilles, a real fighter, who even didn't care about team orders and I think in 1982 he would have given GV a real battle for the WDC if both drivers had survived until the end of the season. Didier was a bit 'crazy' too and probably due to mistakes failed to outscore for example Laffite in 1980 (as was also probably the case in GV and JS battle the year before).

But I generally tend to agree that G. Villeneuve is a bit overrated. Drivers that die tend to be more glorified than others. However, I think Pironi is underrated compared to Villeneuve.

ShiftingGears

10th January 2008, 13:20

ArrowsFA1

10th January 2008, 13:22

So if Reutemann says Gilles is the best driver around, then beats gilles 12:4 in qualfying and scores 3x more points, which matters more?
Statistics on a page or a website are just that - statistics. They provide no background as to the many, many different factors involved in making up those numbers, just as points in the final WDC standings tell you nothing about how those points were won.

Reutemann's opinion is significant because he raced in the same team at the same time as GV. He was there. We weren't.

Statistics and opinions matter, but taking either one in isolation will never give you as full a picture as the two together.

10th January 2008, 14:05

Statistics and opinions matter, but taking either one in isolation will never give you as full a picture as the two together.

In which case, the only possible verdict is that Gilles Villenueve was very good, but not a great.....with maybe an asterisks to indicate that his was a tragically unfulfilled potential.

Osella

10th January 2008, 20:33

However, I think Pironi is underrated compared to Villeneuve.

Good points in your post, and I agree with this point :up: Just like Prost compared to Senna etc.

D-Type

12th January 2008, 18:09

woody2goody

13th January 2008, 17:08

OK my 3 greatest:

1. Michael Schumacher: Even though his antics were sometimes intolerable, he remains the greatest driver ever in terms of statistics and racecraft. I wish he was still racing as a battle between him, Lewis, Kimi and Fernando would probably be one for the ages.

2. Mika Hakkinen: Always had the balls to take the fight to whoever was challenging him. A gentleman, a proper racer, and two titles isn't bad, eh?

3: Kimi Raikkonen: Current World Champion and a surprising choice for me considering i'm not his biggest fan. However, I cannot ignore the fact that he is freakishly good, and relatively mistake-free compared with most of the other drivers. Deserves all the success he gets.

Almost made it: Lewis Hamilton, Jenson Button, Fernando Alonso.

markabilly

13th January 2008, 17:23

I'll finish with a quote from Steve Small's book:

Originally Posted by http://www.motorsportforums.com/forums/images/aria/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.motorsportforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=0#post0)
"To this day opinions are sharly divided about Gilles Villeneuve. To many he was simply what motor racing was all about. To the more dispassionate he was an accident waiting nto happen, and when the end came, well they were proved right weren't they?
In soccer, if the ball goes to Pele or Best, or nor Giggs, there is a collective sense of anticipation, a feeling that something special could be about to happen. . . It was like that with Gilles. As anordinary punter denied access to the inner sanctum of pit or paddock, you could stand on any corner, at any circuit and wait for his Ferrari to scream into view. Then came the reward. With a glint of wildness in his eyes, and the car at some wicked angle - more often than not at its very limit and then some - Villeneuve would pass and you could sense the thrill."

Yes I am a Gilles Villeneuve fan.
from D-type

OH yea!!!

unfortunately in these days of electronics and drivers who are sponsored into drives because of marketing PR or connections, those days are mostly gone...a few flickers of light are left, in Kimi perhaps......

markabilly

13th January 2008, 17:25

D28

16th January 2008, 05:26

LMAO. Gilles was beaten on raw speed by more than one teammate. One of the most overrated drivers of all time.

D28

16th January 2008, 05:50

Motorsport magazine rated GV second greatest driver all time (to Nuvolari) in Nov. 1999. D Jenkinson, Nigel Roebuck and most of his driving contempories considered him something special.Consider The US Grand Prix, Watkins Glen 1979. In practice on a wet, treacherous track GV set the fastest time by 11 seconds over the next man, teammate Jody Scheckter. Next day GV qualified 3rd on the grid, 13 places ahead of Scheckter. He also won the race over Jones and Arnoux.In 1981 at Monaco he qualified 2nd on the grid 15 spots ahead of Pironi and also took the victory.I do not believe that GV was ever consistently outpaced by a teammate.

Roamy

17th January 2008, 08:47

well some facts to consider - as a racer and a man Pironi wouldn't make a hair on Gilles's ass!! Carlos was a man and a racer plus a very good countryman for Argentina. I would respect what Carlos has to say. Plus the "Old Man" knew the real cut of a man!!! So take you facts but I was at Long Beach to witness Gilles and Carlos and if you weren't there you just don't get it!! And we who have been there really can't help you!!

Garry Walker

31st January 2008, 10:06

Statistics on a page or a website are just that - statistics. They provide no background as to the many, many different factors involved in making up those numbers, just as points in the final WDC standings tell you nothing about how those points were won.

Reutemann's opinion is significant because he raced in the same team at the same time as GV. He was there. We weren't.

Statistics and opinions matter, but taking either one in isolation will never give you as full a picture as the two together.

Crazy. Opinions are biased, especially about drivers who attract emotional support, just as GV did for sure.
In the end, stats are what matter. There is no denying or going around that Reutemann and Schekter beat Gilles and losing to 2 teammates in row surely wouldnt cement anyones reputation as the worlds fastest driver. If there was proof Ferrari was screwing Gilles, then things could be reconsidered, but I have never heard of anything pointing to that.

In any case, if you take opinions and stats together (where stats are far more important, because they are more unbiased), they fully support my view that rating Gilles amongst top 3 of all drivers is bordering on the line between lunacy and idiocy.

Garry Walker

31st January 2008, 10:19

FACTS

I've finally checked the record of GV and his team mates at This site (http://f1-facts.com/statistics/team-mates/GVilleneuve)
As Garry Walker has said, this shows that in 1978, his first full season, his record was not as good as Reutemann but remember it was his first season. Then in 1979 there is barely a whisker between him and his team leader, Jody Scheckter, with only seven points separating them at season's end and GV ahead or equal on all indicators. In 1980 he eclipsed Scheckter and in 1981 Pironi. So going by the full years he had, 2:2 versus his teammates. That is a record not very special

Another fact - he won a GP in his first full season. Who else has done that?Hamilton, Schumacher, Stewart, Fittipaldi and Baghetti. Any more?
His teammate won 4 races that year, so now apply that to your comparison and then we are talking. Most other drivers never had a car anywhere good enough to challenge for wins in their first seasons, GV did.

I accept that his early death leads to a certain amount of rose-tinted viewing, as it does in the case of Senna, Peter Collins, Jean Behra and, to an extent, Jim Clark but nevertheless he deserves to be ranked among the greats near the top of the pyramid. Maybe not in the top three but certainly in the next five or ten. Senna, Schumacher, Prost, Piquet, Lauda, Stewart, Fangio, Moss, Clark, Fittipaldi, Brabham, Ascari are drivers who I would rate far above Gilles at any time of the day.
Added to that, there are many more drivers, like Farina, Mansell, Rosberg, Alonso, Räikkönen, Häkkinen who I personally would take above GV as well.
So we are likely talking a place between top 15-20 for GV in all time, no where near top 8.

I think that some here are under-rating him.
No. There is no underrating him, only crazy overrating.

I'll finish with a quote from Steve Small's book:

Thanks for helping my case.
Your posted quote only showed how GV got people emotional due to his style. The same can be said about Colin Mcrae for example, but Sebastien Loeb is many times the better driver, just without as much flare as CM. The same comparison applies to F1.

Motorsport magazine rated GV second greatest driver all time (to Nuvolari) in Nov. 1999. Then they are full-blown idiots.

Consider The US Grand Prix, Watkins Glen 1979. In practice on a wet, treacherous track GV set the fastest time by 11 seconds over the next man, teammate Jody Scheckter.Actually, it was much less than 11 seconds and it was PRACTISE, where only 6 recorded a time. Out of those 6, most were no where near the quality of the Ferrari.

And as a point of reference, 1999 CART wet qualifying (so people were actually trying) at Mid-Ohio

1 Juan Montoya Reynard-Honda 1:28.135
2 Memo Gidley Lola-Ford 1:35.105
3 Luiz Garcia Jr. Reynard-Mercedes 1:38.629

Next day GV qualified 3rd on the grid, 13 places ahead of Scheckter. He also won the race over Jones and Arnoux.
In 1981 at Monaco he qualified 2nd on the grid 15 spots ahead of Pironi and also took the victory. Why are you posting the results of 2 races? I can show you many races where he was nowhere compared to his teammates.

I do not believe that GV was ever consistently outpaced by a teammate. Take a look at 1978 for example.
http://f1-facts.com/statistics/team-mates/GVilleneuve

ArrowsFA1

31st January 2008, 11:09

Actually, it was much less than 11 seconds...
Much less? Reports vary between 9 and 11 seconds, but whatever it was those who were there knew what they had seen. According to Jody Scheckter:
"I scared myself rigid that day. I thought I had to be quickest. Then I saw Gilles's time and — I still don't really understand how it was possible. Eleven seconds!"
Jacques Laffite had this to say about the time:
"Why do we bother? Gilles is different from the rest of us. He is on a separate level."
Both drove in those conditions at the same time so, sorry Garry, but their opinion carries more weight than yours.

However, as Nigel Roebuck has said:
"No one would ever suggest that Gilles was a complete racing driver, in the Stewart or Prost sense of the word: he was too impetuous for that. Races were always more important than championships, and that made him a man apart."

He also said:
"Opinions are sharply divided about Gilles Villeneuve. To many he was simply what motor racing was all about. To the more dispassionate he was an accident waiting to happen, and when the end came, well, they were proved right, weren’t they?"

Garry Walker

31st January 2008, 11:18

Much less? Reports vary between 9 and 11 seconds, but whatever it was those who were there knew what they had seen. According to Jody Scheckter:
Jacques Laffite had this to say about the time:
Both drove in those conditions at the same time so, sorry Garry, but their opinion carries more weight than yours.

However, as Nigel Roebuck has said:

He also said:

It was 9,2 seconds if I remember correctly. The only sources that vary about that time is the ones going by what Jody said and Nigel Roebuck has been reporting for decades, like the fool he is.
I posted times from a qualifying by montoya where he destroyed everyone. Qualifying, where more than 6 drivers took part. Surley qualifying is more important than an irrelevant practise session, where only a few drivers scored times.
If Gilles was on a level different compared to everyone else, why was he beaten by 2 teammates in row?

You have again chosen to ignore parts of my post.

In any case, if you take opinions and stats together (where stats are far more important, because they are more unbiased), they fully support my view that rating Gilles amongst top 3 of all drivers is bordering on the line between lunacy and idiocy.

ArrowsFA1

31st January 2008, 12:02

You have again chosen to ignore parts of my post.
No, I read it. You say that opinions and stats together support your view of GV and I happen to agree that he does not rank among the top 3 all-time F1 drivers, but I do not agree with your view of GV's ability as a racing driver.

You chose to discount the experiences and opinions of Reutemann, Lauda, Scheckter and Lafitte among others, and use phrases such as "like the fool he is", "full-blown idiots" or "lunacy and idiocy" to discount others who disagree with you. In doing so you merely undermine your own argument.

Garry Walker

31st January 2008, 12:15

No, I read it. You say that opinions and stats together support your view of GVNo, I dont let opinions of biased people cloud my judgement. I quoted you where you said opinions and facts should be taken together.

and I happen to agree that he does not rank among the top 3 all-time F1 drivers, Which has been my problem in this thread, glad you agree.

but I do not agree with your view of GV's ability as a racing driver. So where do you rank him? I dont see a place for him in top 15 of all time f1 drivers.
Incidentally, what do you see as my views on his abilities as a racing driver?

You chose to discount the experiences and opinions of Reutemann, Lauda, Scheckter and Lafitte among others, and use phrases such as "like the fool he is", "full-blown idiots" or "lunacy and idiocy" to discount others who disagree with you. In doing so you merely undermine your own argument.

I used the phrases full-blown idiots and like the fool he is regarding journalists, drivers i just called biased.
Gilles easily had an ability to get people to support him, like very few other athletes have. But that doesnt make his driving abilities better or worse.
FACTS remain. The so-called super Gilles never was so convincing against his teammates to make a case for him being an all-time great.

D-Type

31st January 2008, 12:39

Garry,

I think you are confusing a driver's statistical record with his ability. Villeneuve had the ability, unfortunately he rarely had the car to demonstrate it and his untimely death precluded his etablishing a significant set of statistics.

Greatness is more than mere statistics. It is the ability to extract more performance from a car that those who understand believe is possible. It is having a 'racer's' attitude and commitment whether contesting 1st or 10th place. It is having the integrity to stand by an agreement. It is making me want to watch him race and arrange my weekend around it rather than merely watch the GP if I'm at home.

Had Villeneuve not been killed, one of two things might have happened: he might have scored no more wins and become a mere footnote in history, as you obviously consider him, or he might have gone on to score many wins and poles and figure higher in a table of statistics. But he gave his life for our sport so we will never know and must simply form opinions on what our hearts say might have been.

Like Berndt Rosemeyer, Guy Moll and others, he has earned his place in the pantheon of top drivers on the basis of 'what might have been'. Personally I don't think there is sufficient evidence to justify a top three ranking, but some people's hearts say otherwise. But his ability cannot be dismissed or ignored.

Now, a couple of points of fact:

It was 9,2 seconds if I remember correctly. The only sources that vary about that time is the ones going by what Jody said and Nigel Roebuck has been reporting for decades, like the fool he is.
I posted times from a qualifying by montoya where he destroyed everyone. Qualifying, where more than 6 drivers took part. Surley qualifying is more important than an irrelevant practise session, where only a few drivers scored times.

It was not 'an irrelevant practise session' it was the first qualifying session. In those days the qualifying rules were completely different from today. There were two timed sessions where cars circulated freely and every lap was timed; the fastest from either session determined the grid. There were also two untimed sessions, usually one on the Thursday or Friday and another on race day morning.

On this occasion the first timed session was wet and Villeneuve was fastest. the second session was dry and everybody was faster. The times were definitely set during a timed qualifying session not an untimed purely practice session.

If Gilles was on a level different compared to everyone else, why was he beaten by 2 teammates in row?

You have again chosen to ignore parts of my post.
As I have already pointed out, the first was his rookie season and the second was because he recognised his status as number two driver, a concept that apears alien in today's world.

So, who is ignoring what is posted?

Edit: This was posted without seeing the latest exchange

ArrowsFA1

31st January 2008, 13:03

No, I dont let opinions of biased people cloud my judgement.
If by "biased people" you mean the likes of Scheckter, Lauda, Reutemann then they were there. They were team-mates and/or rivals of GV at the time and were in a far better position to judge than anyone how good a driver GV was. Scheckter's opinions of Watkins Glen, for example, are telling in my view because he was in the same car and the same conditions. He knew his capabilities, and those of the car, and he could not understand how GV did what he did.

So where do you rank him? I dont see a place for him in top 15 of all time f1 drivers.
Incidentally, what do you see as my views on his abilities as a racing driver?
I'd certainly rank GV in my all-time top ten drivers because a top driver to me doesn't depend on the number of wins or championships. There's far more to being a great driver than that.

Just on the basis of Watkins Glen, where you've pointed out that "it was PRACTISE, where only 6 recorded a time" I'd say that your opinion of GV's abilities as a racing driver is that he is overrated ;)

The so-called super Gilles never was so convincing against his teammates to make a case for him being an all-time great.
And you've certainly argued that case :cool: :s mokin:

ArrowsFA1

31st January 2008, 13:05

Greatness is more than mere statistics. It is the ability to extract more performance from a car that those who understand believe is possible. It is having a 'racer's' attitude and commitment whether contesting 1st or 10th place. It is having the integrity to stand by an agreement. It is making me want to watch him race and arrange my weekend around it rather than merely watch the GP if I'm at home.
:up:

wedge

31st January 2008, 15:28

D-Type

31st January 2008, 17:52

I enjoy watching Sato race, but that don't neccesarily mean he's a 'great' driver!I agree. On it's own it doesn't. But in combination with other factors it might.

D28

1st February 2008, 18:25

[quote="Garry Walker"]
Then they are full-blown idiots.

Motorsport's list of 1999 was a very personal one, as are all such endeavours, it seems rather harsh to refer to them as idiots. Their ranking of GV as number 2 mentioned that "never have statistics misled so radically". I assume that their high opinion was based on his racing spirit, his determination to race every lap of every race and to never give up. In this I think he approached the attitude of Nuvolari more than any other modern driver. For an example of this attitude check out the you tube video of his 1979 duel with Rene Arnoux at the French GP. To the list of contempory drivers mentioned already, add the names of Alan Jones and Mario Andretti, who both comented on his tenacity.

Denis Jenkinson (no idiot he) was not around in 1999, but he was present at Watkins Glen in 1979 and he did consider GV on a separate level.

He excelled at getting the absolute maximum out of any car at his disposal, and some of the turbo Ferraris were far from classics. In this regard he also resembled Nuvolari; the condition of the car was almost immaterial.

In his best season of 1979, he finished 4 points shy of the WC. It has been mentioned previously that team orders dictated that he support Scheckter for the 2nd half of the season. At Monza he faithfully followed Scheckter home to secure both championships for Ferrari. If he had showed the ruthlessness of a Senna, or even Pironi, perhaps things could have been different.

GV would be at sea in the current F1 scene, no passing. wait for the pit crew to jump you ahead. As a racer he belived the car ahead was there to be passed, on the track if possible, on the grass if necessary (see above video).

Most of the favourable comments by writers and drivers I mentioned were made while he was still alive. I am satisfied to go with their opinions.