| Welcome to The Pit Lane. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Top 10 drivers; Not what you are thinking | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Feb 9 2007, 05:31 PM (415 Views) | |
| blackdog | Feb 9 2007, 07:07 PM Post #16 |
|
Tyre Changer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Interesting one, Piquet. Three world championships, but you could argue that he was lucky to win any of them. In '81 Reutemann threw it away, and Jones probably deserved it more than either of them. In '83 Brabham were known to be using illegal fuel in the latter part of the year, and Renault didn't want to get involved in mud-slinging so didn't protest it. In '87 he was given another pasting by Mansell but somehow managed to keep racking up the 2nd places. Having said that, he did win those titles and the others did not. Ho hum. No-one mentioned Fittipaldi yet? Seems a bit bizarre. |
![]() |
|
| Red Andy | Feb 9 2007, 07:10 PM Post #17 |
![]()
|
No problem. I was merely referring to a few occasions on other boards where your comments have led me to conclude (reasonably, I hope) that you may not be the world's biggest Nelson Piquet fan.
I would merely say it was suspicious that Piquet was often "in the right place at the right time" when Mansell was so unlucky. It is my considered opinion that to some extent, you make your own luck in F1, and Piquet maximised the opportunities he had (particularly in 1987) to succeed. Certainly Mansell missed out on the title in '86 due to no fault of his own, but I think other allegations of "bad luck" are overstated. It may well be the case that Mansell was a more naturally talented racer than Piquet, but being successful in F1 is about so much more than natural talent. Piquet ranks so highly in my list because - violent outbursts against rookie drivers and inappropriate comments about other racers aside - he made the most of the talent he did have, and exploited it to its full potential. |
![]() |
|
| safc_fan89 | Feb 9 2007, 07:14 PM Post #18 |
|
safc_fan89
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
You could argue in the same way that Prost and Senna won their titles when, for the most part, when they had the best car. I'm not going to make a list or anything, but names I would definitely include would be Hakkinen, Mansell and Piquet. As for the likes of Stewart, Moss, Ascari, Lauda, Rindt, Fittipaldi, Brabham et al...I'll let the older folk argue over it
|
![]() |
|
| craggle78 | Feb 9 2007, 07:17 PM Post #19 |
|
Refueller
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
My Top Ten of the modern(ish) era 70's onwards............. 1. Prost 2. Stewart 3. Coulthard......................only joking 3. Lauda 4. Hakkinen 5. Alonso 6. Mansell 7. Jones 8. Piquet 9. Peterson 10= Villeneuve 10= Fittipaldi |
![]() |
|
| The Saint | Feb 9 2007, 07:19 PM Post #20 |
|
Unregistered
|
There is not doubt Piquet was a ‘good’ driver, and you are correct in saying I don’t like him, but I don’t consider him a great. More a good driver who was in the right place at the right time. I could never put him in my top 5 and probably not in my top 10 either. And that is not based on my feelings towards Piquet. I don’t like Schumacher either, but I rate him as one of the best 2 drivers ever. I try to remain objective , regardless of personnel feelings, and cringed when people tried to run Schumacher down as a ‘lucky’ driver who was ‘not that good.’ |
|
|
| Rob | Feb 9 2007, 07:22 PM Post #21 |
![]() ![]()
|
Most do. Prost, Mikka, Shumi are the only ones to pop in my head that haven't. |
![]() |
|
| The Saint | Feb 9 2007, 07:23 PM Post #22 |
|
Unregistered
|
Goood god I forgot about Mika...if you're reading sorry man or should that be... ifyourereadingsorryman! |
|
|
| safc_fan89 | Feb 9 2007, 07:27 PM Post #23 |
|
safc_fan89
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Also depends how you define best. For example in 1991, the Williams was the better car but it was unreliable. And 05 when Alonso won...the Renault was fast and reliable, yet the Mclaren was clearly faster... When did Hakkinen win the title in a car that wasn't fastest? In 1999 the Mclaren was definitely better, and in 1998 it is hard to say whether Schu's form after Monaco was due to his brilliance or a boost in performance of the car. I'd say both. |
![]() |
|
| craggle78 | Feb 9 2007, 07:30 PM Post #24 |
|
Refueller
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Piquet deserves to be in the top 10 if you eliminate the usual top 4 entries, you might say that his three titles came about from being at the right place at the right time, but you have to be good enough to make sure you are at that place! 23 wins 24 poles and 23 FL's do not come about by being lucky, you plainly have to be very very good at what you do! Just my opinion on the debate. |
![]() |
|
| Rob | Feb 9 2007, 07:47 PM Post #25 |
![]() ![]()
|
Best as in winning the WCC. That is IMO the best measure of who has the best car. In 99 Irvine almost won the WDC, and did win the WCC. I think the 99 Ferrari was the better car. |
![]() |
|
| safc_fan89 | Feb 9 2007, 07:50 PM Post #26 |
|
safc_fan89
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I'm not sure really...Hakkinen threw 2 wins away, at San Marino and Monaco, both mistakes he shouldn't really have made. Throw in a few reliability issues and it should really have been more comfortable for Hakkinen. Oh, and DC did his very best to allow Irvine back in ![]() Not that this is related...but F1 needs the battles of 1998-2000 more often They were good years!
|
![]() |
|
| Monty | Feb 9 2007, 08:30 PM Post #27 |
|
Chief Engineer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Probably down to the basic fact that he won three world titles to il leones 1. Doesnt tell the full story of course as you say |
![]() |
|
| Monty | Feb 9 2007, 08:32 PM Post #28 |
|
Chief Engineer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
He also through away a certain win in Monza when he spun out from the lead. Imagine Eddie Irvine as a world champ, no fastest laps or poles and a few fortuitous victories. |
![]() |
|
| Red Andy | Feb 9 2007, 08:42 PM Post #29 |
![]()
|
I agree that it would be ludicrous to try and put down Schumacher on the basis that he was "lucky" and always in a good car. The point is that Schumacher was in a good car because he was extremely talented; he helped build the team around him and wouldn't even have made it there in the first place had his talent not been recognised. I feel this is a recurring theme that runs through F1 - you have to have a certain amount of talent to make it into the top echelons of the sport, and once you're there then it's not necessarily what you have that counts, but what you make of it. I would say another good example of this would be Mario Andretti (someone you mention in your top 10 list.) People have often criticised him as being a "lucky" world champ, due to the dominance of the Lotus in 1978, but it was he and he alone that had the talent to gain the Lotus seat on merit (and to convince Chapman to give him undisputed No.1 status). Furthermore, he made the most of his opportunity, even if he wasn't as naturally talented as some of the other drivers around at that time. |
![]() |
|
| Rob | Feb 9 2007, 08:52 PM Post #30 |
![]() ![]()
|
That and the fact that Enzo rated him very highly. |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Formula 1 · Next Topic » |





![]](http://z6.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)







They were good years!
7:21 PM Jul 11