Jump to content


- - - - -

Top Ten F1 Drivers-Who Is Yours


  • Please log in to reply
46 replies to this topic

#21 davef

davef

    Denny Hulme

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,056 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Auto Racing
  • Sim interest:GPL

Posted Jan 19 2013 - 03:15 PM

Right Michel !

Andretti & Fittipaldi both, if circumstances would have been different would have both put up much better F1
numbers/results  in their careers. Both these drivers had very long careers & (different from say Graham Hill or even
Michael Schumacher )Andretti & Fittipaldi were winning races close to their retirements .

Mario Andretti :  age 53 years 34 days old WINNER   1993 PHOENIX CART INDYCAR RACE

Emerson Fittipaldi : age 48 years old WINNER   1995 NAZARETH CART INDYCAR RACE

Both drivers retired the following season Andretti following the 1994 CART season. Fittipaldi midway 1996
CART season following his bad crash at Michigan. This era of Indycar racing saw perhaps the best drivers
talent in Indycar ( Oval & Road Courses ) ever ?  And these two beat some very good drivers on the day
of their last victories.

Edited by davef, Jan 19 2013 - 03:25 PM.


#22 saampjes

saampjes

    Denny Hulme

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 59 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:drumming, medieval literature
  • Sim interest:GPL

Posted Jan 19 2013 - 03:31 PM

View PostAutoholic, on Jan 18 2013 - 08:14 PM, said:

Wow, several posts and no one has mentioned Jacky Ickx or Dan Gurney? Jacky Ickx is without a doubt the best driver in the rain, especially against anyone from the 60's. I think some of the people listed are only here due to being a current driver for a notable race team but aren't exactly the best of F1. For example, Vettel is not better than Sir Stirling Moss.


Autoholic, you seem to have forgotten that Vettels first F1 win was in the rain in a Toro Rosso, that was really impressive...

I'll vote for Lauda, he was my childhood hero, but Nuvolari might be the best ever. Slightly off topic: I'm reading Poetry in motion by Tony Brooks, very modest, and often overlooked in lists like these.

#23 dbell84

dbell84

    Dan Gurney For President

  • Supporter
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 922 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:20 minutes from Road Atlanta
  • Interests:Whatever
  • Sim interest:GPL

Posted Jan 19 2013 - 03:49 PM

I was going to compare Emo's and Mario's F1 careers also.  They both spent too many years and races in bad cars for their stats to look very impressive in comparison to some of the other drivers mentioned, but I do think they were among the best ever.  Mario racing on both sides of the Atlantic probably did hurt him some in F1, perhaps it affected the opportunities he had to drive for some better teams.  It didn't hurt him in becoming a racing legend as he did accomplish a lot in many disciplines of racing over his career.

Phoenix 1993 CART race, what a memory!  The place was packed and it went nuts when Mario managed to win the race.  You kind of figured that might be his last win at the time.  I'm sure glad I was there.  When I look back on some of those IndyCar races back then, I wonder what happened?  How did we go from that to what it is now?  What a waste.

Dave

#24 GrandPrixYannick

GrandPrixYannick

    Denny Hulme

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 838 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Netherlands
  • Interests:Check out my channel for some nice GPL content :)
  • Sim interest:GPL

Posted Jan 19 2013 - 05:04 PM

View Postdbell84, on Jan 19 2013 - 09:28 AM, said:

View PostGrandPrixYannick, on Jan 19 2013 - 03:11 AM, said:

To my opinion by decade:
1930s: Tazio Nuvolari / Bernd Rosemeyer / Rudolf Caracciola
1940s: Wimille
1950s: Juan Manuel Fangio
1960s: Jim Clark
1970s: Jackie Stewart / Niki Lauda
1980s: Ayrton Senna
1990s: still Ayrton Senna
2000s: Michael Schumacher / Fernando Alonso
2010s: DEFINATELY Fernando Alonso. And Kimi Räikkönen.

Interesting way of defining the best drivers, GPY.  I would argue about the 80's.  Alain Prost won 3 titles in the era and lost 2 more by a total of 2.5 points and he lost another title to Senna despite scoring 11 more total points than Senna that year. Senna had his biggest success at the end of the decade.  Also, for 2 of those titles Prost won in the 80's, the teammates he beat were guys on your list. (Lauda and Senna)  The teammate he beat for the 3rd one is a World Champion. (Rosberg)  One thing I have found fascinating about Alain's career is that he had 5 different teammates who were, or were to be, WDC's and he beat everyone of them in total points for the season, save 1984 when Lauda beat him be a half a point.  The only other teammate to best him in total points for a season was John Watson, in Prost's first season.  I'm not trying to turn this into a Prost biography, I just feel he's a bit like Jackie Stewart in that he's underrated and doesn't always get his due as to how good he was.

If the 2010's are going to be for Alonso and Kimi, then they better get busy.  They spotted Vettel the first 3 WDC's of the decade. ;)

Dave

The reason why I didn't add Prost in the table, is mainly because I have a general dislike to him. I'm just saying, Suzuka 1989. There was no doubt Prost caused the accident. Senna managed to continue en won at last, but got disqualified for a reason, which to was unfair, because he already lost so much time. I guess, this is because Prost is a Frenchmen, and as most people in the FIA are French as well, they gain him some advantage. I don't say it is true, but I think this could be a reason. Overall, I do not really like the French, too, but no offense...

About Fernando and Kimi, I think they deserve it more than Vettel to be in there. Vettel always had the best car and thus won three times in a row, once by ease. Fernando's car however was less strong than the Red Bull and did an amazing job battling for the championship until the final race, especially in 2012. Quite a shame for him, too, he got a lot of bad luck (Belgium and Japan). It is just a fact, that he is the best driver in the field right now. In second place, I'd put Lewis Hamilton.

The reason I put Kimi in the list is that he drove a fantastic return, as 'best of the rest', winning only once, finishing all races in the season. And that in the Lotus, which is an upper-midfield car. Also, that year, I realized how funny he was, with his legendary quotes. "Leave me alone, I know what to do!" That made me almost piss my pants, really xD
And how he planned an alternative escape route in Interlagos... Le-gen-da-ry! Right now I could hardly imagine Formula One without him. It was so for two years, but then I did not realize how funny I was.

#25 Autoholic

Autoholic

    The Stig

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 114 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Driver's Seat
  • Interests:Autoholism is an incurable addiction medicated daily with car porn.
  • Sim interest:GPL

Posted Jan 21 2013 - 01:34 PM

View Postsaampjes, on Jan 19 2013 - 03:31 PM, said:

View PostAutoholic, on Jan 18 2013 - 08:14 PM, said:

Wow, several posts and no one has mentioned Jacky Ickx or Dan Gurney? Jacky Ickx is without a doubt the best driver in the rain, especially against anyone from the 60's. I think some of the people listed are only here due to being a current driver for a notable race team but aren't exactly the best of F1. For example, Vettel is not better than Sir Stirling Moss.


Autoholic, you seem to have forgotten that Vettels first F1 win was in the rain in a Toro Rosso, that was really impressive...

I'm not forgetting anything here. Vettel has traction control and modern racing tires. A good chunk of F1 today comes down to technology. That doesn't mean a good driver doesn't matter, it just shows how important technology is in F1. Back in the 60's when Jacky Ickx was roughly the same age as Vettel, there was no traction control and tires were very primitive by today's standards. I'm putting the drivers into perspective, how much of their career has benefited from technology. That is why Jacky Ickx is the best driver in the rain IMO. In the thread The Real Deal I gave an account of Jacky Ickx's performance in the rain that I don't think any modern driver could match if they were to race the same car in the same conditions at the same track.

When Vettel laps the second place car in the rain, let me know. Then I might consider him on par with Ickx. Heck if Vettel can put 30 seconds between him and the second place car while in the rain, then he's worthy of consideration. To be clear, I'm not saying Vettel isn't a good driver. I just don't view him as being on the same level as the drivers that raced before traction control existed.

The only way to really list the best drivers in F1 is if it's apples to apples. For the most part, this would come down to decade. An overall best of F1 in the history of the sport could only be done based on how many races and championships of each driver.

Edited by Autoholic, Jan 21 2013 - 01:52 PM.


#26 Phil

Phil

    Tazio Nuvolari

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 223 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Interests:I have no preference
  • Sim interest:I have no preference

Posted Jan 21 2013 - 02:49 PM

View PostAutoholic, on Jan 21 2013 - 01:34 PM, said:

View Postsaampjes, on Jan 19 2013 - 03:31 PM, said:

Autoholic, you seem to have forgotten that Vettels first F1 win was in the rain in a Toro Rosso, that was really impressive...
I'm not forgetting anything here. Vettel has traction control and modern racing tires. A good chunk of F1 today comes down to technology. That doesn't mean a good driver doesn't matter, it just shows how important technology is in F1. Back in the 60's when Jacky Ickx was roughly the same age as Vettel, there was no traction control and tires were very primitive by today's standards.

Erm traction control has been banned since the start of 2008, all of Vettel's 26 wins have been without TC.

#27 Autoholic

Autoholic

    The Stig

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 114 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Driver's Seat
  • Interests:Autoholism is an incurable addiction medicated daily with car porn.
  • Sim interest:GPL

Posted Jan 21 2013 - 03:25 PM

View PostPhil, on Jan 21 2013 - 02:49 PM, said:

Erm traction control has been banned since the start of 2008, all of Vettel's 26 wins have been without TC.

Thanks for letting me know that, I thought it was stilled used in F1. The bulk of my point still remains, TC or not. Technology has become a huge part of F1. The amount of downforce produced by today's F1 cars give them a hell of a lot more traction, even in the wet, than what was possible in the 60's. The tires used are also leaps and bounds better than the tires used in the 60's as well. Fuel, braking, shifting, etc. are all done either by computers or use computers to fine tune the vehicle for optimal performance. Racing in the 60's came down to the skill level of the driver and having quality parts. Racing today is driver skill, quality parts, out of this world engineering, latest technology, etc. Comparing a victory today to a victory 40 years ago is not apples to apples. For starters, an accident in a F1 car today isn't likely to end up with the driver dead. An accident in a Ferrari 312 back in 1967 could easily end up with the driver dead. It took more guts and skill to drive flat out back then. If F1 today had an average of 1 death per season, I would wager there would be fewer F1 drivers willing to take that risk.

Edited by Autoholic, Jan 21 2013 - 03:30 PM.


#28 Robert Fleurke

Robert Fleurke

    Denny Hulme

  • Supporter
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 554 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Groningen, the Netherlands
  • Interests:Life
  • Sim interest:GPL

Posted Jan 21 2013 - 03:32 PM

View PostAutoholic, on Jan 21 2013 - 03:25 PM, said:

View PostPhil, on Jan 21 2013 - 02:49 PM, said:

Erm traction control has been banned since the start of 2008, all of Vettel's 26 wins have been without TC.

Thanks for letting me know that, I thought it was stilled used in F1. The bulk of my point still remains, TC or not. Technology has become a huge part of F1. The amount of downforce produced by today's F1 cars give them a hell of a lot more traction, even in the wet, than what was possible in the 60's. The tires used are also leaps and bounds better than the tires used in the 60's as well. Fuel, braking, shifting, etc. are all done either by computers or use computers to fine tune the vehicle for optimal performance. Racing in the 60's came down to the skill level of the driver and having quality parts. Racing today is driver skill, quality parts, out of this world engineering, latest technology, etc. Comparing a victory today to a victory 40 years ago is not apples to apples. For starters, an accident in a F1 car today isn't likely to end up with the driver dead. An accident in a Ferrari 312 back in 1967 could easily end up with the driver dead. It took more guts and skill to drive flat out back then. If F1 today had an average of 1 death per season, I would wager there would be fewer F1 drivers willing to take that risk.

That's why it is impossible to compare drivers from different era's. It's all a matter of opinion. However we all have our favo drivers, nothing wrong with that ;-)

#29 M Needforspeed

M Needforspeed

    Denny Hulme

  • GPLLinks Team
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,491 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:GPL - start a collection of GPL era die cast racing cars -Skiing
  • Sim interest:GPL

Posted Jan 21 2013 - 05:12 PM

View PostGrandPrixYannick, on Jan 19 2013 - 05:04 PM, said:

The reason why I didn't add Prost in the table, is mainly because I have a general dislike to him. I'm just saying, Suzuka 1989. There was no doubt Prost caused the accident. Senna managed to continue en won at last, but got disqualified for a reason, which to was unfair, because he already lost so much time. I guess, this is because Prost is a Frenchmen, and as most people in the FIA are French as well, they gain him some advantage. I don't say it is true, but I think this could be a reason. Overall, I do not really like the French, too, but no offense...


a very strange way to put an appreciation on a driver !

Prost at that time has already accumulated incredibles statistics to show he is undoubtly an "All time great "

What I like about Prost is that he had always strong,tough and fast drivers on his team: Watson,Arnoux, Lauda, Mansell, Senna .And many time, he was still on the table to fight for the championship at the last race of the season.No statistician wld have been disappointed if he had won 8 times the championship !
Usually, being every year a championship contender hasn't been the rule for most of World ,champions.Schumacher Ferrari years being hard to believe...But what about his pale teammates?? Unlike for Prost, his first competitor was never on his team.

Another Prost ability was his constant " looks like a train on a rail" racing line, and the consistency of his laps times during a race.Many drivers that attend racing schools courses learn that  it is one of the most difficult thing to achieve. Same when we drive GPL, isn' it ?  

Thinking twice about the eighties, imo, Alain Prost was the true man to beat at the beginning of each season.

And the eighties wasn't my favorite period, far from that.There was already too much technology and marketing in the sport.

Edited by M Needforspeed, Jan 21 2013 - 06:00 PM.


#30 Autoholic

Autoholic

    The Stig

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 114 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Driver's Seat
  • Interests:Autoholism is an incurable addiction medicated daily with car porn.
  • Sim interest:GPL

Posted Jan 21 2013 - 06:26 PM

Here is something to think about. It's a list of the drivers in F1 over the years and what their career boils down to.

http://www.f1-fansit...river-rankings/

Naturally, if we only used the number of podium finishes as our way of ranking them, some of the greats wouldn't even make that top 10 list, while someone hardly anyone remembers would. Also, there would be a large gap between MS and 2nd place. While MS used to be a really good driver, I don't think many people would put him as #1. Also, when MS was racing for Ferrari, Ferrari didn't have much for serious competition. This was a time when Ferrari's F1 racing team was driven by engineers and not marketing, when Ferrari was unyielding in its demand for #1 place. If you bring the driver's character into the mix, MS would struggle to make it past 8th place on that list. Any F1 driver with a big ego would struggle to make that list of top 10 and that puts several all time greats in the crapper. Ayrton Senna was a good driver, but later on in his career and before he died, he was a douche to a lot of his fellow drivers. So what makes a great driver, great? What is used to compare them would have to be spelled out before hand.

Edited by Autoholic, Jan 21 2013 - 06:37 PM.


#31 Phil

Phil

    Tazio Nuvolari

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 223 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Interests:I have no preference
  • Sim interest:I have no preference

Posted Jan 21 2013 - 07:08 PM

View PostAutoholic, on Jan 21 2013 - 06:26 PM, said:

So what makes a great driver, great? What is used to compare them would have to be spelled out before hand.

Exactly.

Those rankings would be better considering percentages, number of races per year has almost trebled since 1950. Even then there's increasing reliability etc.

In defense of the modern era, the talent pool is massively bigger today than in the '50s & '60s. The world's a richer place, thousands of kids start karting aged 4 or 5, the sport has blossomed across the globe. If the skill level reflects the size of the talent pool, it's increased steadily over the years.

In the first F1 championship, 52-year-old Fagioli finished third. The champion was a 43-year-old Farina, and 2nd place was spring-chicken Fangio (aged 39), who went on to win 5 titles as an overweight 40-something. Fangio would not squeeze into the cockpit of a modern F1 car. If he did, he wouldn't be fit enough to complete a race. Modern F1 drivers are elite athletes; the heroes of the past retarded their performance by smoking, eating too much and not exercising. Relevant? Depends on your criteria for greatness.

I take your point about safety, but if a staggering genius arrives in 2013 and wins every race in a Marussia, would you discount him on the basis he hasn't proven his bravery in dangerous cars?

#32 davef

davef

    Denny Hulme

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,056 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Auto Racing
  • Sim interest:GPL

Posted Jan 21 2013 - 08:06 PM

View PostAutoholic, on Jan 21 2013 - 03:25 PM, said:

Technology has become a huge part of F1.

From Rainer W. Schlegelmich's excellent book GRAND PRIX FASCINATION FORMULA 1 ( 1993 )

Attached File  CLERMONT 1972.jpg   334.92K   27 downloads   Attached File  BARCELONA1993.jpg   238.13K   29 downloads

Team McLaren


Clermont 1972   Barcelona 1993

Edited by davef, Jan 21 2013 - 09:51 PM.


#33 Autoholic

Autoholic

    The Stig

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 114 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Driver's Seat
  • Interests:Autoholism is an incurable addiction medicated daily with car porn.
  • Sim interest:GPL

Posted Jan 21 2013 - 09:02 PM

View PostPhil, on Jan 21 2013 - 07:08 PM, said:

View PostAutoholic, on Jan 21 2013 - 06:26 PM, said:

So what makes a great driver, great? What is used to compare them would have to be spelled out before hand.

Exactly.

Those rankings would be better considering percentages, number of races per year has almost trebled since 1950. Even then there's increasing reliability etc.

In defense of the modern era, the talent pool is massively bigger today than in the '50s & '60s. The world's a richer place, thousands of kids start karting aged 4 or 5, the sport has blossomed across the globe. If the skill level reflects the size of the talent pool, it's increased steadily over the years.

In the first F1 championship, 52-year-old Fagioli finished third. The champion was a 43-year-old Farina, and 2nd place was spring-chicken Fangio (aged 39), who went on to win 5 titles as an overweight 40-something. Fangio would not squeeze into the cockpit of a modern F1 car. If he did, he wouldn't be fit enough to complete a race. Modern F1 drivers are elite athletes; the heroes of the past retarded their performance by smoking, eating too much and not exercising. Relevant? Depends on your criteria for greatness.

I take your point about safety, but if a staggering genius arrives in 2013 and wins every race in a Marussia, would you discount him on the basis he hasn't proven his bravery in dangerous cars?

In defense of drivers from the golden age, many of the greats did F1 and GT. Many of the races were all stacked on top of each other. You would do a weekend in some F1 race and the next weekend would be GT. Sometimes the races were even on the same weekend and a driver in demand would do both. I know of 1 weekend in GT where there were two races and some who started one race, went and did another and came back to finish the endurance race. Jacky Ickx often did endurance racing and quick GT races. More than once, Ickx would go and race a Mustang before an endurance race. This was very useful for his racing with JWA / Gulf racing as he would get the current condition of the track figured out in the Mustang so he would already know the track for endurance. With all that said, F1 is a young man's game these days. Every ounce has to have its purpose and one of the easiest ways to keep weight off the car is to have a slim driver. This isn't new though, it's been that way since Ayrton Senna.

About the safety point and an amazing but new driver. If we are looking at F1 over the years, yes I would discount the new guy on that he hasn't proven himself. That's when compared to guys who raced in a time when death in F1 is a high probability. If we are just talking about the new guy proving his worth as a driver, that is a different story. We aren't comparing him to guys who put their lives on the line to race. however, just because a new guy has an amazing year doesn't mean you should count him in with the greats yet. The great didn't become great in 1 year and I don't look at anything in life and call it great (in terms of history) when it hasn't been around that long. I prefer to see if it stands the test of time. I use this thought process a lot in automotive topics. Some new car will come out and everyone will comment on how great it is, the best _______ ever made, worth its salt. It happens all the time. I tend to wait to say such things about a car until its replacement has come along and see how good it is then. Or if it can even be replaced after the whole new feeling is worn off.

Edited by Autoholic, Jan 21 2013 - 09:07 PM.


#34 MECH

MECH

    Double poly killer

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,408 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Here ->
  • Interests:My Girlfriend
  • Sim interest:GPL

Posted Jan 22 2013 - 05:48 AM

I wouldn't call any driver a "great driver" if he needs to resort in harming other drivers to win a race.
So my list wouldn't contain some of the "great" drivers mentioned here.
And even with the cars being as safe as they now are it is still not neccesary to force others off the track.
I've seen some great driving this year where the contenders let each other live while going through a corner side by side.
The combined driving skills and sportmanship is what makes a driver "great" imho :)

#35 muzikant

muzikant

    Denny Hulme

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 52 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Nurburgring! VLN races

Posted Jan 22 2013 - 03:04 PM

My list.. top 3

1. Jim Clark
2. Ayrton Senna
3. Stefan Bellof (lap record on the ring 6:11)

#36 McSimov

McSimov

    Jackie Ickx

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 2 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Russia,Isle Jura
  • Interests:Whisky,racingzen
  • Sim interest:GPL and P&G

Posted Feb 13 2013 - 09:45 AM

1.You are know. 2.Luis. 3.Kimi.

#37 jgf

jgf

    Denny Hulme

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 785 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Columbus, OH
  • Sim interest:GPL and P&G

Posted Feb 13 2013 - 12:29 PM

View PostM Needforspeed, on Jan 18 2013 - 09:54 PM, said:

Mario Andretti...

Definitely.  IndyCar champion, F1 champion, also won in stock cars, sport cars, even dragsters.  Named "Driver of the Quarter Century" by his peers.  IMO only Jim Clark and Dan Gurney come close to his achievements over such a broad range of racing.

Somewhere in my archive of VHS tapes is an interview with Al Unser Jr. in which he stated Andretti was "the best driver out there" and "should have won Indy at least seven times".

#38 Pete Gaimari

Pete Gaimari

    Jim Clark

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,536 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Colorado
  • Interests:Racing and Muzzleloader Hunting
  • Sim interest:GPL

Posted Feb 13 2013 - 12:39 PM

I don't have a list, but without question I put Jim Clark at the top. Even though this can be said of other drivers. I would have loved to see Jim's record had he lived long enough to do it.

#39 M Needforspeed

M Needforspeed

    Denny Hulme

  • GPLLinks Team
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,491 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:GPL - start a collection of GPL era die cast racing cars -Skiing
  • Sim interest:GPL

Posted Mar 01 2013 - 12:55 PM

In depth and interesting insight on Alain Prost.Let say I share his thoughs and cld go further on analyzing Prost, but it may be biased because I am french, but didn 't feel very supportive of French drivers, until Alain Prost came on the scene.

  Peter, in the following, didn 't insist enough on Alain ability to be fast, very fast when he wanted to .That's why he has by far the best lap race record statistics during his time ( 1980 - 1993).Why always "motor racing tabloïd journalists (1)" fail to remember it ??

(1) in most cases,a pleonasm


by PETER DICK

While the death of Ayrton Senna in May of 1994 brought forth an enormous amount of written tributes, the definitive end to the driving career of his chief rival, Alain Prost, just a few months earlier, saw surprisingly little in the way of written reflections. Considered by this writer to have been the greatest driver in F1 history, this piece is my humble attempt to capture the essence of a great man, and a great career.
If racing drivers can be divided into two broad categories – the physical and the cerebral – then Alain Prost was the greatest of the cerebral drivers ever to sit in a racing car. Not all drivers fit neatly into one category or the other – there are lots of gray areas and drivers as a stylistic "package" fall at many points between the two extremes.
In the "physical" approach, the driver is not focused on testing or car set-up, but more so on driving 11/10th’s every time he sits in the car. He does not correct deficiencies in the car’s handling, but masks them by driving around them. He will often drive beyond the means of the car, pulling things out of a chassis that it really ought not be able to give. This style is more readily accessible to the public because the driver is visually exciting at all times, pulls off some spectacular wins, and drives "balls to the wall" throughout. The driving is not necessarily subtle or disciplined, and is more improvised, while the cerebral is more calculated or strategic. The physical drivers tend to win their races on race day, while the cerebral often win the race before the race day’s sun has risen. The mechanical attrition rate is higher in the physical approach, as are the risks to the driver himself over the length of a career – these men being more likely to suffer serious injury or death on the track. Noted members of this school have included Bernd Rosemeyer, Tazio Nuvolari, Jean Behra, Jochen Rindt, Ronnie Peterson, Gilles Villeneuve, Stefan Bellof, and most notable amongst today’s drivers would be Nigel Mansell, Jean Alesi and Gerhard Berger.
Then there is the cerebral or clinical approach. These drivers do their hardest work of all in test sessions and on the Friday and Saturday of a race weekend when they meticulously, painstakingly perfect their race set-up so that on Sunday, the car is positioned to do the work for them. Their art is more subtle, for the public can not appreciate the work done in a rainy mid-week test at Silverstone. All they see is a driver running away with a race and not looking like he’s working very hard because the car is handling so beautifully. The public often fails to appreciate that a car does not end up so perfect on race day by accident. These drivers subscribe to the famous Fangio ethic that the object of the exercise is to win the race at the slowest possible speed. Prost seems to have learned very early in his career what Christopher Hilton (in his biography on Prost) calls, "...the most significant lesson in all of motor racing: you extract the maximum without stretching your machine or yourself a single fraction beyond what you need to." I’d advance that at this particular racing ethic, Prost was unequalled. Noted other practitioners of this style have included Achille Varzi, Rudolf Caracciola, Juan Fangio, Alberto Ascari, Jim Clark, Jackie Stewart, Niki Lauda and Nelson Piquet.
Some notable drivers who can not be easily fit into one of these two camps include Stirling Moss, James Hunt, Alan Jones, and Ayrton Senna – men who straddled the wall, possessing the best of both schools. These men arguably have had better overall "packages" than any of the others, so perfectly have they blended the intellectual with the physical. Of course, it also must be noted that even the clinical drivers usually start their careers using greater application of the throttle than their brains. Clinical perfection is a result of accumulated experience and thus drivers grow into this – it is the natural progression of an intelligent driver who’s talent is growing rather than stagnant. Prost may be unique however in demonstrating this disciplined, thinking style from the word go, even in his days at the Winfield racing school at Paul Ricard.
Having seemed equal to the others at the school, but not outstanding in any way, his instructors’ eyebrows were raised one day when the track was wet, and they discovered Prost braking at the end of the straight at the same point he had been braking in the dry for days. This was the first hint that he was holding something significant back. In qualifying runs leading up to the race amongst 5 finalists, Prost deliberately seemed to be just amongst the others for speed and times. He did just enough to make it to the final without betraying that he had anything in hand. Only in the final did he suddenly demoralize his peers by blowing them away, at a point in time when they would not be psychologically equipped to deal with this revelation. Having spoken of his strategy to an instructor afterwards, it took the man 10 years of watching Prost in F1 to come to believe him – so astonishing was it to him that anyone that young and just starting out could have that kind of discipline and psychological depth, not to mention the confidence that sandbagging requires.
In recent years it became popular to denounce Prost as everything from a wimp (when he refused to take excessive risks in traffic or blinding rain), to a lucky driver who wins when others drop out. He has been branded "political" (chiefly by those who have never worked closely with him) and when he tried to explain in precise detail the mechanical subtleties that compromised his race, he was labeled a whiner – proof again that Joe Public does not care to understand the detailed behind-the-scenes work that is often responsible for both successes and failures. The press bears some responsibility too in this regard, for they print what sells, and thus focus more on the spectacular and the cult of the personality, and less on the technical details that affect race and championship performance.
Prost is, amazingly, labeled by some as not being a real "racer". If these people insist on ignoring the subtlety of Prost’s art, they should at least appreciate that the proof is in the pudding. You do not win 4 world championships and a record 51 grand prix races by not being able to race. The object of a race is not to look spectacular, be the fastest, pass the most people, or take the most risks. The object of a race is to win. It follows then that the driver who wins the most races must be the best "racer". It follows also that Sunday is only the end of the chain, the day in which you see whether all the previous work has paid off or not. It is something that has always been understood by the Clark’s and Prost’s. A quick look at the list of career grand prix race wins for drivers shows that, with a few notable exceptions, the upper end of this table is dominated by the clinical drivers. When it comes to consistently high results over the length of a career, it is the thinking approach that delivers.
My favourite Alain Prost story, the one that I feel sums up his tactical genius more than any other, surrounds the Italian GP at Monza in 1988. Prost and Senna are locked in an intense championship battle that is between them alone - a McLaren in-house affair. It is late in the season and they can indulge themselves in the races because there is no 3rd party threat - they will finish 1-2 in the championship no matter what. Prost is following Senna closely in the early stages when Alain realizes that he has an engine problem that will surely prove terminal – realizes with certainty that he will not last the race. Knowing this, and knowing Senna’s ego and his need to prove he’s fastest, Prost decides to drive 11/10th’s and push Senna hard, setting fastest lap after fastest lap. Senna takes the bait, and increases his pace to match Prost and maintain or increase his gap. Prost however, is deliberately driving at such a pace as to put himself the wrong side of his fuel reading, leaving him not enough to finish the race. He is making Senna do the same. Now if Senna had really thought about it, he would have realized that Prost simply does not do things like that, that’s he’s too great a thinker to miscalculate his fuel supply. Senna takes the bait however, thinks only of proving he can match Prost’s challenge, be as fast, stay ahead. Half way through the race, Prost duly drops out with engine failure, and the damage to Senna is done. In the late stages he is so marginal on fuel that he’s had to cut back dramatically, and the Ferraris are now breathing down his neck. Senna feels a desperate need to get by a rookie in traffic at a risky place, they collide, and his race is over. It was a long shot on Prost’s part, but his actions did, in the end, have a compromising effect on Senna’s race, even long after Prost had dropped out.
Sitting in our armchairs analyzing this it seems very logical, but to think something like this through in the midst of a race at 180 m.p.h. speaks of a level of genius equal to that which Senna was so much more readily appreciated for. It is a different, more subtle kind of genius in Prost’s case. Those who fail to appreciate Prost as a "racer" are missing the degree to which racing is chess, and not merely an athletic exercise.
Prost’s career is a rich tapestry of achievements over a long period of time. As far as overall seasons are concerned, certain treasures stand out. 1984 shines as the first season when you could say that Prost separated himself from his peers and became clearly the best on all fronts. For sure 1986 was the best complete year from beginning to end, when he took a title with a McLaren-TAG that was vastly inferior to the dominant Williams-Honda (McLaren won 4 races that year, Williams 9!), by simple virtue of driving a flawless year and making the most of every opportunity presented to him. In 1988 he and Senna were a real match for each other in equal equipment, Prost losing the title by 3 points, winning 7 races to Senna’s 8. Senna may have just beaten Prost to the title, but Alain raised his game in coming to grips with Senna and was simply outstanding. 1990 stands out as a year in which only Prost’s genius could have worked the miracles he did at Ferrari. It was only for lack of a Honda engine that he narrowly lost that title, and the work he did to bring Ferrari to McLaren’s level required a far greater leap than Senna’s simply carrying on with the already dominant McLaren package. It was Prost’s testing and feedback that made the Ferrari chassis what it was and his wins that year were some of his most intelligent ever. The cerebral vs. physical issue was also dramatically highlighted that year by the fact that in equal equipment, Prost won 5 races and narrowly lost the title, while teammate Mansell won once and was never in the running. 1990 will always to me, be Prost’s year, as I feel he made far better use of what he had than anyone else, while maintaining his ethics. When the title came down to the wire, it was Senna who felt obligated to punt Prost off the circuit rather than decide things in a clean fight. In 1993 Prost took an excellent package and made the most of it, as you’d expect of him, doing exactly what was required to win races and the title, nothing more. His efforts, once again, were rather unappreciated because of how easy he made it all look. The great ones have always made it look easy.
It should be noted that in addition to Prost’s 4 titles, he finished runner up 4 times, and all by 7 or less points. As well, in finishing 5th in the 1981 season, he was only 7 points off the title – so in effect, he came extremely close to being a 9 times world champion.
As for Prost’s greatest races, there are so many to choose from that I have restricted myself to a handful of very special performances. They are listed chronologically below:
South Africa 1982 (Renault)
Prost leads initially but suffers a puncture and must drive slowly to the pits for a new tire. He resumes in last place, lapped by the leaders, yet manages through sheer brilliance to carve his way back to a dominant lead to win the race.  
Monaco 1986 (McLaren-TAG)
Simply a perfect race. Pole position, leading all the way (except for his tire stop), taking race fastest lap. Teammate Rosberg in 2nd decided at one point to really have a go and close the gap to Alain. For several laps he drove on his limit, as fast as he thought it humanly possible to drive the circuit that day. He then saw pit boards showing that Prost was still pulling away. Rosberg, not one who is easily impressed, was stunned and it was at this moment that he became a Prost fan for life.
Belgium 1986 (McLaren-TAG)
A first corner contact with Berger forces Prost to limp slowly around the longest circuit in F1 for a new nose. He resumes in last place, with a seriously bent steering column requiring him to adjust his steering by a 1/4 turn on the straights for the rest of the race. He sets a race fastest lap 2 seconds faster than anyone else, and finishes 6th for a vital point (he won the title by just 2 points that year). John Barnard watched the telemetry and said Prost didn’t once touch the boost. He took that drive out of himself, not the car, and Barnard rates it one of the best performances he’s ever seen.
Brazil 1987 (McLaren-TAG)
A race that Prost rates as his most perfect. Qualified only 6th or 7th, 2 full seconds slower than the dominant Williams-Hondas. Spent practice concentrating on race set-up. Chose low downforce while everyone else went with high downforce out of tire wear concern. Deliberately disciplined himself to take it very easy in the first part of the race when the fuel load was heavy, losing much ground, going slowly in the corners, etc. Yet Prost was able to go the distance with only one tire stop while others stopped two and even three times. He won the race by a full 30 seconds over vastly superior opposition, by a deep appreciation of the race as a whole. Clearly this race was won by intelligent strategy, and long before the cars ever sat on the grid awaiting the green light.
Portugal 1987 (McLaren-TAG)
   Prost has often won by pressuring his rivals into mistakes while making none himself. This race better exemplifies this than any. Alain spent the last half of the race putting the most relentless pressure on race leader Berger as he remorselessly sliced away at the Ferrari’s advantage. With only a handful of laps left, Berger cracked and spun, Prost romping home to his record-breaking 28th win.
Japan 1987 (McLaren-TAG)
A familiar story. Puncture on lap 2, slow trip to the pits, resuming in last. Carves his way to 7th and is the fastest man on the track all day when he had no hope of points and no reason to drive this way other than to satisfy himself.
France 1988 (McLaren-Honda)
During this intense year-long battle with Senna in equal equipment, they each beat the other fair and square on several occasions. This race was perhaps Prost’s most satisfying triumph (along with Mexico) where he simply out drove Senna pure and simple. His conclusive pass on Senna in the later stages brought to mind something Rob Walker once said about Prost. When Alain passes someone he said, it is like watching ballet – so cleanly and decisively is the move done.     
Mexico 1990 (Ferrari)
Prost’s lowest grid position in ten years (13th) was the result of a practice spent working on race set-up. Fastest in the morning warm up (a warning of things to come), Prost chose a set up that favoured overtaking on the straight, and relentlessly scythed his way through the field to win. Long before he took the lead you began to realize how inevitable his victory was. It was a masterful race and demonstrated that on a circuit where passing is possible, grid position is irrelevant if the race set-up and tactics are there.
South Africa 1993 (Williams-Renault)
First race back from his year off, and a weekend that made it seem he had never been gone. Pole position, race fastest lap, and a victory that had to be earned. A poor start put him in 3rd, and he had to work hard to separate first Schumacher from 2nd, and then Senna from 1st. It was a stunning comeback and was evidence of Prost’s winter testing work.
Montreal 1993 (Williams-Renault)
Prost was pushed hard throughout and really earned a strong win. It was his most masterful drive of his final year, prompting James Hunt (in his last race critique) to say that we had witnessed the "Prost of old" on this day.
  
In Prost’s later years he has been criticized for his distaste of driving in pouring rain when visibility is poor. One must remember that Prost was the driver whom Didier Pironi – blinded by spray – struck in practice at Hockenheim in 1982. One of the first on the scene, Prost saw the full extent of Pironi’s career-ending leg injuries. Being intelligent and not wishing to die in a racing car, Prost has been wary of the rain since. He has often said he has no problem with driving on a slippery or treacherous track. It is the lack of visibility that he is opposed to. He likes to be in control (as anyone traveling at 180 m.p.h. should desire) and says you can not be in control when you can not see 50 yards in front of you. He has won soaking wet races (Monaco ‘84, etc.) but in the latter part of his career no longer had the stomach to engage in a level of risk he considered to be over the top. He has never cared whether the press find it fashionable this week or not to slam him or side with him. He has had, sometimes alone, the courage to not race when conditions were atrocious, such as Adelaide ‘89, etc. Many drivers will express their reservations that maybe they should not be racing in these conditions, but very few have the conviction to simply not race, regardless of the consequences or criticism. Prost took a strong stand at Adelaide in ‘89, Senna equally so in his determination to stay in his cockpit and race, ignoring the attempts at mustering driver solidarity. Prost watched the race from the pits, Senna drove into the back of Martin Brundle at 180 m.p.h. because he was totally blind and had no idea Brundle was there.
I am glad Prost has gotten out of the sport in one piece. Anyone who survives such a long career has a degree of luck on his side, but one also makes a lot of one’s own luck. Prost took a lot less chances than many – less, for example, than Senna. It may, possibly, have a bearing on their respective fates. Prost was quite sincere in how shattered he was by Senna’s death, for while they may not have been friends, they shared an even closer bond – that of rivals. So linked to each other were they by virtue of possessing the only talents great enough to offer the other a consistent challenge, that Prost was prompted to say, upon Senna’s death, that he felt that half of his career was now gone.
Prost has left the sport while still in possession of an awesome form on the track, but what I will miss most of all is the sublime subtlety of his precision and intellect – in short, his racecraft. A more disciplined driver, I am convinced, has never sat in a racing car – ever. If results mean anything, then the lesson is this: winning 51 GPs and 4 world titles is not about sticking your foot to the floor. It is about supreme intelligence and painstaking work away from the spotlight. Thanks for the legacy Alain.
Peter Dick
Toronto, Canada



Thanks for your text, Peter !

Edited by M Needforspeed, Mar 01 2013 - 03:53 PM.


#40 davef

davef

    Denny Hulme

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,056 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Auto Racing
  • Sim interest:GPL

Posted Mar 01 2013 - 01:42 PM

Wow !     Great read Michel ! :up: Thanks for posting.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users

Sim Racing Links