Greatest F1 Driver Of All Time?

[Marco-R34GTT]

That is like saying Chris Amon was the greatest winner ever, but never quite managed to win a Grand Prix...

Speaking of 'rainmeisters' have a few people forgotten Jackie Ickx (or however you spell it! l0l!), my dad always ravs on about Ickx...

Look at day and age tho, ok, Jimmy Clark may not have had a few hundred engineers to get his car perfect, nor did he have car-pit, pit-car telementary... But then Jimmy Clark's car didn't have 10,000 sensors on his car, his DFV Cosworth didn't rev to some 16k RPM... He didn't use slick and his car didn't create 90 tonnes of downforce... Schumacher was also dedicated countless hours to the test track, not satisfied with leaving it all to Irvine, Barrichello, Badoer, Gene and Massa like others could of/would of done... Michael wanted first hand feed back and he wanted to be able to converse with his engineers on getting the car developed and setup correctly... He was not only naturally fast, he put in the hours and the effort to extract every last iota of performance humanly feasible... You get out what you put in.. You would be hard pressed to find ANY driver that peers Schumacher in this regard... Not only that, Schumacher had a brain, he is/was intelligent, he thought things out, he understood the intrinsic behaviour of the cars he drove, their performances, their strengths and weaknesses, how they did react to inputs and outputs and how they should of, and how he wanted the car to react to inputs and outputs... Absolutely amazing when you think about it...

Schumacher was not only a fantastic driver, in my opinion, Alesi, Senna and a few other aside, Schumacher had more balls than the rest of the field put together... Nurnburgring 1995, Schumacher PASSED ALESI! ON SLICKS! IN THE WET!!!! Not to mention.... Lap speed, I still agree that over one lap, Senna's RAW talent and his simply awesomely insane speed would put him tops... Look at Schumacher tho, Hungary 1998... When Ross Brawn sswitched Schumacher to a three stopper, "Michael, your going to a three stopper, I need you to do X amount of laps in X amount of time", Schumacher split the McLarens to shreds and won a very astounding victory... Few others could've delivered what Ross asked for... Or in 2000, at Suzuka when the championship was on the line and Michael produced some of the finest inlaps and outlaps of his career in order to pass Mika during the pitstops.... I still remeber that race... Bloody amazing... He had few peers in normal conditions... In questionable or marginal conditions... Schumacher and Senna stand heads and shoulders above the rest.. I will mention Senna in the Toleman at Monaco (83? 85?) and Donnington in 93....

[djr81]

Senna was in the Toleman (Later known as Benetton) in 84 - the year of the shortened race that actually allowed Niki Lauda to win his third drivers championship.

The point I was trying to make was that amongst other things drivers like Clark had to contend with such things as:

Crook aero. The dirty secret of the Lotus 48 was that it generated aero lift at the front end. Compare nose cones with the equivalent Brabham at the time - clearly Ron Tauranac new something that Colin Chapman didn't. As an aside if you want the classic story of bad aero check the history of the Porsche 917 Longtail.

Back in the sixties & even the seventies drivers were very, very vulnerable. Having an off didn't means stalking back to the transporter whilst the mechanics got the spare ready. It meant a trip to the hospital in an ambulance (if you were lucky & if there was an ambulance) or to the morgue if you weren't so lucky. There is a reason why F1 no longer goes to such places as the long Spa circuit, or the full Monza circuit or the Nurburgring.

Drivers didn't just used to do F1. They commonly did full seasons of F2, Sports cars, Can-Am, Tasman Cup, not to mention non championship F1 races. Hell Denny Hulme drove for McLaren in the Can-Am at the same time as driving for Brabham in F1 - try that now! Jim Clark was killed in an F2 race, remember.

Bottom line is that it is impossible to compare champions from different era's - in motorsport as well as in any other sport (Maybe cricket aside) What makes them champions is talent, commitment & even ruthlessness - traits that are shared by all winners & traits that don't necessarilly make them nice people. So best bet is to pick someone you respect.

Oh and Jim Clark never had automatic gearboxes, anti stall, anti lock brakes (At the rear the F1 cars still have this in effect). Hell he never even had seatbelts half the time, nor HANS devices or a good helmet or....

[Roy]

They are all hacks. If only Cole trickle had of got his shot in an Indycar he could have got an F1 seat and he would have shined. He deserved the Indycar seat more then Sly did

[Kozeyekan]

i think we're all in agreement that Schumacher was a harder worker, more of a professor. He prepared himself for each race with in depth studies of the track, weather conditions and calculated minor details to the nth degree. He planned, he prepared and he succeeded by hard work and dedication.

Senna on the other hand just had the raw talent.

he could just do things that others could not.

I'll grant you that Schumacher was probably smarter, better educated, better prepared for every race and probably worked much harder than Senna. No doubt. But why did he do it? Because he had to.

Senna was able to do what he did more by passion than calculation, with more of a spiritual man/machine performance. Hell, he died with an Argentinian flag in his race suit so he could pay tribute to Ratzenberger who had died the day before, and the previous night had jumped the fence to see if Barrichello was OK after his crash in qualifying. I don't think Schumacher would have had any thoughts other than winning a race at any time, which is not a bad thing, he's just super focused.

Maybe the lack of focus on the race helped kill Senna, or maybe it was the crappy weld on the steering column after they shortened it.

But the point is that Senna wasn't focused on details, he just raced as a way to get himself to a new level.

Things like in 92 and 93 where he stopped the car during practice to help at a crash, getting the driver out of the smashed car each time, while the other racers just drove on. Whereas schumacher hardly seems to notice the world beyond the tarmac.

Things like that, the raw talent and the amazing feats cannot be taught. It's like comparing music. On paper, Elton John plays piano and has sold more songs than Mozart, but who is the better musician?

Schumacher was a driving machine, but Senna was at a driving god (to steal the quote from the hamster).

If you could create a robot driver and programmed it to hit every apex at the right angle, the gear shifts at the right time and drive with mathematical perfection, it'd be a metal version of schumacher, If you gave it LSD and a messiah complex, you'd have Senna.

[Marco-R34GTT]

Even though these two words are similar, I consider them subtly different. Skill and ability... To hit 'nearly' every apex with perfection, near perfect brake and throttle application, his feather touch and the pedals and steering wheel.. That takes skill, it take tenacity, that is Schumacher... "When reach this limit, when you touch this limit, you find... You can go a little faster, a little higher, and with the experience as well, you can fly very high"... That is raw talent, THAT is ability, as well, pure passion.... Senna...

If I had to pick two guys to race my two cars... Schumacher/Senna any day....

[ctjet]

Jeez, wouldnt like to be in the garage of those teammates... the death stares could kill innocent bystanders. Other than Alonso, they would have to be the two who take losing to their teammate as the worlds most biggest insult

[gtr660hp]

I can only vote for the drivers I have seen in the flesh....its easy for me, Senna by miles...I saw him at Adelaide and Monza,Monaco and Spa...through Eau Rouge he was a genius and has no peer. Schumi may have the stats but he didnt have Senna's magic

Edited June 22, 2007 by gtr660hp

[Roy]

Magic? Not going to argue. But if i was a driver id rather the stats then something as subjective as magic.

Schuey is the greatest F1 driver . There is simply no argument. If you want to talk about the most talented driver...lol then that is a discussion that needs to take place over an entire weekend watching vids whilst drinking copious amounts of beer

[Kozeyekan]

So, now we get into the semantics of what makes one great?

Schu is the most accomplished driver. Does that make him the greatest though?

comparing schu and senna is like comparing Michael Jackson and Elvis, Kobe Bryant and Michael Jordan, Mike Tyson and Muhammed Ali, Muralithurin and Shane Warne, or Elle Macpherson and Claudia Schiffer.

But, I really only started this topic to justify my argument and berate my mate, so it's been successful.

I still think that both of them in their prime, in the same car, Senna would have Schumacher for breakfast. He's just crazier. He'd either whoop his arse or die trying.

Literally.

But back on the topic of greatness, Senna was greater because he did stuff off the track too, stopping for other drivers, visiting them in hospital, hell he donate $80 million to kids charities in Brasil!

There is even a rise in Senna as a deity in some candomble ceremonies.

First, there was Alexander the great, he came and conquered, and died young, now we have Ayrton the great, who did much the same, though he was not in his 20's when he died, though I have it on good authority that Alexander was a pretty accomplished chariot racer, but that might have had something to do with beheading anyone that overtook him.

[Roy]

Ok, im drunk so please correct me if im wrong. I used to be a Schuey fan, hence why i kinda know his results as i have had this debate plenty of times

In 1992, the year that Mansell got up with Williams, Schuey won his first GP at Spa in the wet in a Benetton. And Senna was at McLaren. The 92 McLaren was not as strong as the Championship winning 91 car...but it was still a great driver in a great team who won 3 GPs in his 7 podiums.

So in Schueys first full season of F1, he came 3rd in the Championship with 1 win in his 8 podiums. Senna came 4th in the Championship. Not exactly having the rookie Schuey for breakfast. Pay particular attention to the fact that McLaren beat Benetton on the Constructors, so its fair to say that in a better car he came behind Schuey in the Drivers Championship.

In 1993, with the same Ford powerplant the McLaren was again a better car then the Benetton. Senna came 2nd in the Championship with 5 in his 7 podiums. Schuey came 4th with again only one win, but this time 9 podiums. Every GP his car finished he finished on the podium!!!! McLaren again beat Benetton in the constructors championship, Schueys retirements really hurt him.

So in 94, Senna was to the dominant Willians team. Schuey got a great start to the season winning the first GPs up until the tragic death of Senna at San Marino. So in the year that Williams won the Constructors Championship, Schuey won the WDC, inclduing beating Senna (though i dont think he actually finished any of the races he was with Williams?)

Another thing to consider is that Schuey was the fresh punk on the scene. There is no way you can tell me he was as good a driver in 92-94, as he was later in his career at Ferrari. Senna had been driving in F1 since 84 or 85 so had vastly more experience when they were racing.

I dont think you can seriously say Senna is clearly a better driver then Schuey, with respect to talent. When you consider the only true measure, that is stats. Schuey is the clear winner on this front, most Poles, wins and championships...he has to be the greatest F1 driver.

But, i do agree it is hard to compare drivers from different eras. They are all great and have their strenghts. If it wasnt for Schuey i would say that you cant pick a winner. But he raced and beat Senna, Mansell and Prost when they were in their prime and his career was in its infancy. Then there is always the stats, who knows how good the other drivers 95-05 could have been if he wasnt so dominant in the sport ?!?!?!?

[FineLine]

You forgot his brain explosion in '94 against Hill.

You are all a bunch of noob's. Best F1 driver of all time was Jim Clark. Senna aside, the rest of those mentioned aren't yet qualifed to remove his tyre warmers - except he never had tyre warmers, or telemetary, or 40,000 engineers to make the car perfect, or crash barriers & side impact regulations. Only a dodgy Colin Chapman chassis that was half as strong as it should have been & a customer Ford motor.

But for me the greatest will always be Jack Brabham. He & Ron Tauranac managed to run, engineer & finance a grand prix team (with parallel minor formula involvement with Honda, no less) using an Australian engine to two consecutive World Championships. One to Sir Jack (His third) & one to the much lamented Denny Hulme. Parochialism, sure - but read his auto bio & dig through the things they used to get up to in the 60's. The longevity of both his & Ron Tauranac's relationships with auto giants such as Honda is testament to the integrity & many other qualities that these two old school gents have. Unlike most of those on the above lists you need not make any excuses for them.

Reading my mail mate, Brabham's feats when put in true context will never be eclipsed imo.

Clark was the senna of his day but dont forget Graham Hill was the schu of his day as well.

Senna was never going to die of old age. There are quite a few drivers out there that could match him if they had the same lack of respect for their personal safety. He lived and drove on the ragged edge and beyond and paid the price as predicted by the older heads in the game.

[Necx0]

Ok, im drunk so please correct me if im wrong. I used to be a Schuey fan, hence why i kinda know his results as i have had this debate plenty of times

In 1992, the year that Mansell got up with Williams, Schuey won his first GP at Spa in the wet in a Benetton. And Senna was at McLaren. The 92 McLaren was not as strong as the Championship winning 91 car...but it was still a great driver in a great team who won 3 GPs in his 7 podiums.

So in Schueys first full season of F1, he came 3rd in the Championship with 1 win in his 8 podiums. Senna came 4th in the Championship. Not exactly having the rookie Schuey for breakfast. Pay particular attention to the fact that McLaren beat Benetton on the Constructors, so its fair to say that in a better car he came behind Schuey in the Drivers Championship.

In 1993, with the same Ford powerplant the McLaren was again a better car then the Benetton. Senna came 2nd in the Championship with 5 in his 7 podiums. Schuey came 4th with again only one win, but this time 9 podiums. Every GP his car finished he finished on the podium!!!! McLaren again beat Benetton in the constructors championship, Schueys retirements really hurt him.

So in 94, Senna was to the dominant Willians team. Schuey got a great start to the season winning the first GPs up until the tragic death of Senna at San Marino. So in the year that Williams won the Constructors Championship, Schuey won the WDC, inclduing beating Senna (though i dont think he actually finished any of the races he was with Williams?)

Another thing to consider is that Schuey was the fresh punk on the scene. There is no way you can tell me he was as good a driver in 92-94, as he was later in his career at Ferrari. Senna had been driving in F1 since 84 or 85 so had vastly more experience when they were racing.

I dont think you can seriously say Senna is clearly a better driver then Schuey, with respect to talent. When you consider the only true measure, that is stats. Schuey is the clear winner on this front, most Poles, wins and championships...he has to be the greatest F1 driver.

But, i do agree it is hard to compare drivers from different eras. They are all great and have their strenghts. If it wasnt for Schuey i would say that you cant pick a winner. But he raced and beat Senna, Mansell and Prost when they were in their prime and his career was in its infancy. Then there is always the stats, who knows how good the other drivers 95-05 could have been if he wasnt so dominant in the sport ?!?!?!?

This argument is never going to end as Schumacher was the most COMPLETE F1 driver, yet Senna was the FASTEST. Will correct a few points though. Your Schuey podium argument is valid.....as Senna either tended to win....or crash. That was his style. However the 1993 season was perhaps Sennas best as the car was an absolute dog with the shithouse Ford engine yet he managed 5 wins!

Hard to say Schuey beat the greats in their prime as both Mansell and Prost were very much in the twilight of their careers. They won as the 92/93 active Williams was streets ahead of the game. The first 3 races of 1994 perhaps sums the both of them up best. Ayrton had 3 poles from the first 3 races, yet it was Schuey that got the race wins. Was he faster than Ayrton? No way. But he knew when to pace himself.

[Roy]

... Schumacher was the most COMPLETE F1 driver, yet Senna was the FASTEST.

I agree with that 100%.

Though i think you are being a bit harsh on Mansell and Prost. Agree re-Williamsdomonance, but look what Mansell did in 93, and to Riccardo in 92. Twilight as in towards the end of hic career, absolutely. Twilight as in any slower...no way. Same can be said for Prost...well thats my thoughts anyway

[Kozeyekan]

Reading my mail mate, Brabham's feats when put in true context will never be eclipsed imo.

Clark was the senna of his day but dont forget Graham Hill was the schu of his day as well.

Senna was never going to die of old age. There are quite a few drivers out there that could match him if they had the same lack of respect for their personal safety. He lived and drove on the ragged edge and beyond and paid the price as predicted by the older heads in the game.

Err... who are the older heads that predicted it?

From what I understand, there is STILL contention about how he died.

The information i found was varied.

One theory is that the bash plate bottomed out, sending him into the air, due to a crappy track.

Another, more credible theory is that Senna didn't like the height of the steering wheel, and asked the mechanics to telescope it in, so the mechanic just cut the steering column and welded it back together with some re-enforcing rods on it. Under stress, the weld broke, and he lost steering.

The big problem is that the data was deleted from 1.5 seconds before impact (which is basically the whole crash in F1) The excuses vary, but the most credible is that the staff at imola circuit didn't want to lose the race, or call it off.

Of course, if a driver had died on the circuit, the race would be called off, and investigated, which is why they maintain that senna and Ratzenberger didn't die on the track, but in hospital. If the lost footage showed Senna getting a bit of strut through his skull, it'd weaken their case that he died in hospital.

They did the same with ratzeneberger

So, I think it's hard to say with certainty what actually happened, but I think it's most likely that the steering column broke, but it's unlikely that he just missed the turn, because he was braking for almost 2 seconds, slowing the car down from 310km/hr to 218km/hr, if he could break, he would have been trying to steer, the only reason for him still going straight on a 45 degree(ish) turn is that he lost steering.

So to say that he was beyond the ragged edge and paid the price is a bit off, unless you have different information from these "older heads", but for my money, I'd rather back a steering failure than Senna missing an easy corner with no real pressure on him.

But hey, if the "older heads" know better, I'll listen.

Senna was a loose cannon, no doubt, but he was not crazy. He drove to the edge and then tried to go faster, he was someone who drove on instinct and feel rather than mathmatical precision, which is really the difference between him and schumacher

Schu was definitely a more complete, studied, disciplined and statistically superior driver, I just think that Senna had the ability to take it to another level, and keep finding faster laps. I agree with the quote that schumacher is the most complete driver, and that Senna was the fastest.

[Roy]

To finish first you first have to finish

Senna was no doubt a great driver. But the first F1 race i remember watching was when he ran into Prost and he continued on

[djr81]

To finish first you first have to finish

Senna was no doubt a great driver. But the first F1 race i remember watching was when he ran into Prost and he continued on

First races I can remember of Senna was him in the JPS Lotus-Renault. Absolutely staggering throttle control & general driving. There may be some stuff on Youtube which you can compare with todays cars. Different world.

He was a bit stuffed in the head by the whole Prost/J M Balestre thing in the late 80's/early 90's.

[Beer Baron]

So, now we get into the semantics of what makes one great?

Schu is the most accomplished driver. Does that make him the greatest though?

comparing schu and senna is like comparing Michael Jackson and Elvis, Kobe Bryant and Michael Jordan, Mike Tyson and Muhammed Ali, Muralithurin and Shane Warne, or Elle Macpherson and Claudia Schiffer.

that's rubbish. most of those comparisons have no finite measure. comparing drivers has some very simple measures. wins, podiums, points, poles, championships. schuey is at the top of them all. sure you could argue some drivers had more talent, but didn't have the right car or team. or had their careers cut short or whatever. but schuey is the number 1 F1 driver. no doubt about it.

[djr81]

comparing schu and senna is like comparing ....... Muralithurin and Shane Warne

Well Shane Warne is the greatest exponent of leg spin bowling the world has ever seen & Muralithurin is a third rate chucker and a sook who is abbroad minded personely useless away from the subcontinent. Does that help?

[Kozeyekan]

that's rubbish. most of those comparisons have no finite measure. comparing drivers has some very simple measures. wins, podiums, points, poles, championships. schuey is at the top of them all. sure you could argue some drivers had more talent, but didn't have the right car or team. or had their careers cut short or whatever. but schuey is the number 1 F1 driver. no doubt about it.

Actually, all the comparisons have a finite measure, but the point I'm making is that finite measures (i.e. statistics) not involving direct head to head comparisons are usually used solely to illustrate a preconceived point.

Michael Jackson and Elvis can be argued against each other based on raw sales (Elvis) international sales (Elvis) or profit (Jackson)

Kobe Bryant and Michael Jordan: Bryant currently has a better career scoring average (31.6) vs Jordan's 30.12, and also has a high score of 81 vs Jordan's 69, but you'd have to be nuts to think Kobe is good enough to even approach Jordan.

Mike Tyson and Muhammed Ali: Tyson has more knockouts, and more championship reigns, but Ali is considered far superior to him despite this.

Muralithurin and Shane Warne: Depending on the person. Statistically, Murali has more wickets, making him better by that standard, but many of them have come from Zimbabwe, Bangladesh and other lower level cricketing nations, whereas Warne has not played them as much as Murali. This comparison is probably the most apt because they were around during an overlapping era, are both considered "greats", but the statistically inferior Warne is rated higher due to WHO he beat and WHEN he did it.

or Elle Macpherson and Claudia Schiffer. Elle's measurements are 36-25-35, whereas Claudia's are 37-24-36, meaning that she has greater bust and hips, though Elle got nekkid in Sirens, which apparantly had some plot hiding somewhere, but no man has yet been able to find it. Co-incidentally, this movie arrived on video the same time as multi-speed fast forward and high definition freeze frame technologies.

My point is that Statistics are not a measure of greatness.

Things like legacy, excitement and peer respect need to be considered.

In terms of legacy, Schumachers would be of a hard working, dedicated professional, whereas Senna was more of a humanitarian, though no less competitive.

Excitement is purely an individual's taste. I consider Senna's racing to be better to watch because you just didn't know what would happen, like when he did a 720 spin on the strips in Adelaide in the wet when Prost and Mansell retired due to the danger. But, hey like I said, it's all personal preference.

Peer respect, well, each has their admirers and their hated enemies. Ask Prost about Senna and I'm sure he'd have some choice words, ditto some of Schumachers former teammates.

Putting Schumacher as the greatest driver based solely on statistics is rubbish. This is why in other sports, such as boxing, basketball or even AFL, raw statistics are not often used for comparison, except by Bruce Macavaney, and that's only because he can actually remember them all and wants to show off.

So in conclusion: Statistics are finite, but greatness is not a finite measurement, so using statistics as the sole measurement of greatness is an incomplete analysis. They can contribute to the judgement, but are not the sole criteria.

Yes, I was indeed bored enough to write this. I'm was supposed to go to an advance screening of transformers, but missed out on tickets, and it's raining so I'm bouncing off the walls.

[sh@un]

*headache