Who is the Greatest F1 driver of all time?

[coppice]

What on earth is Carlos Reutemann doing on the list? And our Nige was heroic on the day but come on , he was no Senna or Prost ,some days he wasn't even really a Mansell really... And heavens , juts how much of a besotted fan does one have to be to even consider Max Verstappen as a candidate. Isn't it a bit, y'know ... early to start thinking about accolades like that ?

As Grand Prix racing started in 1906 I will chuck Tazio Nuvolari's name into the ring . Along with that wonderful buccaneer , Clay Reggazoni , he looks just like an Italian racing driver should . And yes , Clay was technically Swiss , I know .

[BTCC frog]

Originally Posted by coppice

What on earth is Carlos Reutemann doing on the list? And our Nige was heroic on the day but come on , he was no Senna or Prost ,some days he wasn't even really a Mansell really... And heavens , juts how much of a besotted fan does one have to be to even consider Max Verstappen as a candidate. Isn't it a bit, y'know ... early to start thinking about accolades like that ?

As Grand Prix racing started in 1906 I will chuck Tazio Nuvolari's name into the ring . Along with that wonderful buccaneer , Clay Reggazoni , he looks just like an Italian racing driver should . And yes , Clay was technically Swiss , I know .

I thought these were the 25 drivers most likely to be voted for by someone. Clearly I should have had Fittipaldi instead of Reutemann, but I hadn't been expecting someone to vote for Fittipaldi, whereas I think I once saw someone on reddit suggest that Reutemann was the greatest. I think there might be someone who votes for Mansell or Verstappen, but realistically I think the only proper candidates are Hamilton, Schumacher, Fangio, Prost, Senna, Stewart and Clark.

And I was only counting Formula 1 since 1950, so Nuvolari was not included.

[2 litre Touring Car Star]

Originally Posted by coppice

What on earth is Carlos Reutemann doing on the list? And our Nige was heroic on the day but come on , he was no Senna or Prost ,some days he wasn't even really a Mansell really... And heavens , juts how much of a besotted fan does one have to be to even consider Max Verstappen as a candidate. Isn't it a bit, y'know ... early to start thinking about accolades like that ?

As Grand Prix racing started in 1906 I will chuck Tazio Nuvolari's name into the ring . Along with that wonderful buccaneer , Clay Reggazoni , he looks just like an Italian racing driver should . And yes , Clay was technically Swiss , I know .

This is the post I was looking for.

I'd put it to you that everyone is judged on their best, therefore Mansell is absolutely equal to Senna and Prost.

Alright, he didn't win either 86/87 titles. But he won the most races by double the next best. That has to count for something when chronic unreliability was actually reliable in those days?

He's like the Dutch team of the 70s. Didn't win the World Cup, but were still the best team

For whatever weaknesses you see in Mansell, I'd put it to you that despite being statistically better since, his 1992 season is the biggest clobbering any champ has won his title in F1 history?

There isn't a driver in motorsport history that, accounting for relative strengths/weaknesses, could beat him in a FW14B/15C.

FW14b/15C is the zenith of F, and he's a contributor to it. Unlike Schumacher, Vettel and Hamilton, who've cashed in with relatively less impressive cars.

Best Pom on ovals. So good that if he was a yank, he'd be the best yank on ovals as well!

[2 litre Touring Car Star]

Having said that, Prost is the best driver. Because overall, that's how you're supposed to drive racing car.

Not as good in the rain? Well, that's 1 in 6 races he misses out.

Not as fast in qualifying? Well, one lap requires a lower standard of driving and brings lesser drivers to the pack.

It doesn't matter as much.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by 2 litre Touring Car Star

There isn't a driver in motorsport history that, accounting for relative strengths/weaknesses, could beat him in a FW14B/15C.

FW14b/15C is the zenith of F, and he's a contributor to it. Unlike Schumacher, Vettel and Hamilton, who've cashed in with relatively less impressive cars.

Originally Posted by 2 litre Touring Car Star

Having said that, Prost is the best driver.

Reading your posts here - it comes across that you rate Mansell as being no higher than 5th best of all time (which is fine if that is where you rate him)?

You have said more than once that Prost is the best - so I take it you would place him #1 on any list?

You also refer to Vettel, Schumacher and Hamilton as cashing in with cars that were less impressive (and from that I take it as being less dominant compared to their competition). Which ultimately means that Mansell's greatness can be attributed to Patrick Head, Paddy Lowe, Adrian Newey and Damon Hill.

As Patrick Head himself describes the time:
'Nigel showed little interest in active ride in 1986 and ’87, when we ran the Honda engines with him and Nelson Piquet, and when he came back from Ferrari in ’91 he still wasn’t that interested until he heard about the lap times Damon Hill had been achieving in testing.'

Which - whilst does not detract from how good a driver/car pairing the FW14B/Mansell combination was - a lot of credit for Mansell's results in that one season must go to the designers and test driver.

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by 2 litre Touring Car Star

There isn't a driver in motorsport history that, accounting for relative strengths/weaknesses, could beat him in a FW14B/15C.

How can you possibly substantiate this?

[2 litre Touring Car Star]

Originally Posted by Aysedasi

How can you possibly substantiate this?

I have to justify everything to you?

Here it's easy with some knowledge of the time.

Alain Prost is the best driver of all time. If he isn't, then who ever it is is only insignificantly better than him. That includes your superhero Hamilton and Jim Clark. Prost is the best barometer when comparing generations. Whatever he does, if it could be bettered, could not be much better.

In 93, with the benefit of 2 years development of the 15C (The car Mansell was supposed to drive in 92, but didn't bring it out because they did so well with the 14B), not having Mansell as team mate, but a green Damon Hill, he couldn't match Mansell stats or performance. In actual fact, the stats flatter Prost that year.

When Prost was beaten in 93, almost all the time he was genuinely beaten. In 92, with the possible exception of Canada, if it weren't for mechanical, non driving errors, Mansell would've won every race.

There's nothing Prost did in 93 that Mansell couldn't have done, and a number of things Mansell would've done that Prost didn't.

South Africa - Mansell would've beaten Prost off the line and been a munite up the road before Prost finally got past Senna.

Brazil - Mansell would not have ended up on the beach like Prost did and would've won.

Donington - Mansell would not have been flapping about with the tyres in changing conditions, he'd have been far more assertive and confident in the car. Senna would've put in one of the best drives of his career and been 30secs behind Mansell.

Monaco -Idk what happened at the start line for Prost, but it would not have happened with Mansell. Mansell wins.

The problem every driver in the history of motorsport has with the 14b/15C, is that they're driving a car intrinsically suited to Mansell. Its not a "neutral car". It's a similar problem Bottas has at MB, it's car for Hamilton to drive. At that level, it's a wild difference.

What on earth is any other driver going to do that's better than Prost in the 15C? Senna beat him to a championship scoring fewer points, so you can objectively scratch him off.

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by 2 litre Touring Car Star

I have to justify everything to you?

Of course not, only when you state something as a fact that half the forum is likely to disagree with.....

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by 2 litre Touring Car Star

I have to justify everything to you?

Here it's easy with some knowledge of the time.

Alain Prost is the best driver of all time. If he isn't, then who ever it is is only insignificantly better than him. That includes your superhero Hamilton and Jim Clark. Prost is the best barometer when comparing generations. Whatever he does, if it could be bettered, could not be much better.

In 93, with the benefit of 2 years development of the 15C (The car Mansell was supposed to drive in 92, but didn't bring it out because they did so well with the 14B), not having Mansell as team mate, but a green Damon Hill, he couldn't match Mansell stats or performance. In actual fact, the stats flatter Prost that year.

When Prost was beaten in 93, almost all the time he was genuinely beaten. In 92, with the possible exception of Canada, if it weren't for mechanical, non driving errors, Mansell would've won every race.

There's nothing Prost did in 93 that Mansell couldn't have done, and a number of things Mansell would've done that Prost didn't.

South Africa - Mansell would've beaten Prost off the line and been a munite up the road before Prost finally got past Senna.

Brazil - Mansell would not have ended up on the beach like Prost did and would've won.

Donington - Mansell would not have been flapping about with the tyres in changing conditions, he'd have been far more assertive and confident in the car. Senna would've put in one of the best drives of his career and been 30secs behind Mansell.

Monaco -Idk what happened at the start line for Prost, but it would not have happened with Mansell. Mansell wins.

The problem every driver in the history of motorsport has with the 14b/15C, is that they're driving a car intrinsically suited to Mansell. Its not a "neutral car". It's a similar problem Bottas has at MB, it's car for Hamilton to drive. At that level, it's a wild difference.

What on earth is any other driver going to do that's better than Prost in the 15C? Senna beat him to a championship scoring fewer points, so you can objectively scratch him off.

A post full of 'would have' 'could have' and 'should haves'..... This would have been done by Mansell. That wouldn't have been done by Mansell. Just supposition - because it didn't happen. It can only be your opinion, and fair enough. I fully appreciate and applaud the support that individuals give to their favourite, there's nothing wrong with that in my eyes at all but then justifying it with supposition just doesn't work.... It doesn't really matter (and by the way, neither Hamilton nor Clark are my 'superhero').

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Aysedasi

A post full of 'would have' 'could have' and 'should haves'.....

Two statements:
Alain Prost is the best driver of all time.
Prost is the best barometer when comparing generations.

Many suppositions.

[coppice]

Originally Posted by 2 litre Touring Car Star

This is the post I was looking for.

I'd put it to you that everyone is judged on their best, therefore Mansell is absolutely equal to Senna and Prost.

What an extraordinary argument. Let's muse about it a little- suppose I play golf , and fluke a hole in one . Does that make me a Tiger Woods? Or consider the curious case of Giancarlo Baghetti - he won his first three Grands Prix, the latter counting for the WDC . Judged at his best , it is hard to argue against anyone being better (and let's conveniently ignore his subsequent slide into anonymity ) . Mansell and Reutemann were mighty on their day - but they just had fewer days than their betters .

[2 litre Touring Car Star]

Originally Posted by coppice

What an extraordinary argument. Let's muse about it a little- suppose I play golf , and fluke a hole in one . Does that make me a Tiger Woods?

Maybe not fluke a hole in one. But from my limited knowledge of golf, Carnoustie seems to have the reputation of being the single hardest gold course. So if you won the British Open there a few time and set the course record, you'd be disappointed that you're not in the conversation?

Originally Posted by coppice

Or consider the curious case of Giancarlo Baghetti - he won his first three Grands Prix, the latter counting for the WDC .

Not really a sufficient body of work?

Originally Posted by coppice

Judged at his best , it is hard to argue against anyone being better (and let's conveniently ignore his subsequent slide into anonymity ) . Mansell and Reutemann were mighty on their day - but they just had fewer days than their betters .

Not everyone has the benefit of being in a driver development program since they were 12. The process of becoming a top line driver was ad hoc and more to do with the personality of the driver rather than skill. At a time where cars weren't so set in their relative competitiveness like it is now.

Driving for Lotus could be the equivalent of driving in GP2 nowadays. Idk what happened to him at the end of 85, but Nigel Mansell, end of 85 -92 (even 93), is in the conversation.