What makes a driver great?

[Damon]

There has been a great deal of talk here recently about how great so and so driver is ect ect. But what makes a driver great. To me there seem to be a few distinct groups of racing drivers.

1. Fast racers with clear talent that produce the goods both over a race distance and in qualifying. E.g. The Schumachers, Montoya, Hill (im sure you'll disagree on that one), and the recent greats like Senna, Prost and Mansell.

2. Quick drivers that are great over a qualifying lap but lack the consistancy over a full race distance. E.g. Hakkinen, Coulthard

3. Pay drivers that lack any real speed or talent and are just there due to the cash they bring to the team. E.g. Mazzacane, Marques.

My point is how can we label any driver great. Each driver has his own skills and downfalls, it is impossible to decide based purely on results as some would argue that a poor driver in a good car can get results and visa versa. Talent itself is also hard to gauge, so greatness must be based on opinion. Your thoughts please...

[badoer fan]

Originally posted by Damon
3. Pay drivers that lack any real speed or talent and are just there due to the cash they bring to the team. E.g. Mazzacane, Marques.

Marques is at Minardi because of his skill and driving, he does NOT bring money

[bella]

well, another group could be the ability to whoop a lap out of a car no matter how useless it is. included would be schuey senior, perhaps fisi, nigel mansell, but definitely not jenson.

and badoer fan is right.

[Speed]

DC: Points in every 2001 GP so far, for me, this means "consistancy" (two wins included)

[Bononi]

Originally posted by Damon

2. Quick drivers that are great over a qualifying lap but lack the consistancy over a full race distance. E.g. Hakkinen, Coulthard

I won't quote you about the 1st because you're a Damon's fan and it really doesn't matter.

But saying that Hakkinen and Coulthard lack of consistency in a race ?????

If you mind checking the stats of McLaren since they're there and you'll see that's non sense !

I'm sure you will agree with me.

[TimD]

This is one that constantly intrigues me. For me, when someone is quick enough to be in Formula 1, he is already in the stratosphere as far as talent is concerned. There are no bad drivers in Grands Prix.

It's just that some are on a different plane altogether.

I tend to class drivers in three brackets:

1 The gifted naturals - such as Stirling Moss, Juan-Manuel Fangio, Jim Clark, and yes - Ayrton Senna and Michael Schumacher, whatever I might think of their methods. These are drivers who seem not even to have to consciously think what to do to make a car travel faster than any other. A car driven by these people will dance around a circuit.

2 The analysts - Those who study what a car can potentially do, and then go out to actively get it done. Alain Prost was the arch exponent of this. Jackie Stewart and Mario Andretti too. I think Mika Hakkinen has something of this about him.

3 The fighters - not necessarily natural talents, these are drivers who take a car by the scruff of the neck and make it go fast, whether it wants to or not. They don't make terribly good test and development drivers, because they tend to drive through a problem, rather than analysing and solving it, but by goodness they are fun to watch. Nigel Mansell figures high on that list. So too Jochen Rindt, Jean Alesi and Michele Alboreto.

They are all greats. And it's seeing the various ways of dealing with the job of making a car go fast that makes the sport so exhilarating.

And while it is sometimes akin to anathema to say it around here - F1 is not the be-all and end-all of motor sport. You can only really get an idea of what a driver is about by seeing him take on different challenges. This could take the form of the one-make Mercedes race where a young kid called Senna startled Niki Lauda by comprehensively beating him hollow in 1984. It could be giving Damon Hill the keys to a 1960s Ferrari GTO sports racer and telling him to get on with it.

And it might even take the form of watching an ISRS prototypes race, to see just how quickly a Ferrari 333SP can go when Giovanni Lavaggi gets his hands on it.

Lavaggi.... what was someone saying about "pay" drivers?

[Maxmil]

It seems to me that what makes a driver "great" is the ability to score points on a consistent basis. All the rest somehow follows. The best measure of this ability that I can come up with is the number of points a driver scores divided by the number of starts he makes. The "Points per Start" measure makes it possible to compare active and retired drivers, as well as drivers who develop quickly and those who mature more slowly. It also permits comparisons between drivers whose careers are cut short and those who were/are fortunate enough to enjoy an extended career.

I calculated this number for close to thirty "great" F1 drivers all of whom made at least 30 starts between 1950 and today, and the results were as follows for the top nine, or those scoring more than 3 points per start:

Juan Fangio 5.44
Michael Schumacher 4.83 (And rising)
Alberto Ascari 4.38
Alain Prost 4.01
"Nino" Farina 3.86
Aerton Senna 3.81
Jimmy Clark 3.81
Jackie Stewart 3.64
Damon Hill 3.13

There are about twice as many drivers in the range from 1.95 - 2.99. Once you go below the 1.95 level the names are not nearly as familiar.

I found the most interesting thing about this exercise was the number of drivers (3) who started out in 1950 at age forty or more and still made the cut over 30 to 50 starts. Two of these, (Ascari and Farina) had distinquished pre WWII careers as well. The surprise was the margin by which Schumacher surpassed the other two active drivers on the list. David Coulthard 2.94 (And rising) and Mika Hakkinen 2.56 (And falling). The durability prise went to Riccardo Patrese with 256 starts, but, alas, only 281 points. Prost topped the points list with 798.5, but will very probably be overtaken by Schumacher who currently has 720.

[Bononi]

Tim, you're always so clarifying.
I accept almost everything you wrote. Like you said just being there is already on the top, as I wrote in some other post, "Anyone driving at speeds more than 200 Kph for more than 30 laps is a good driver".
You mentioned the 1st bracket, and you put Senna on that. Yes, I just read a book about him, with a different point of view. It is very interesting because it's based on interviews with his personal trainer Nuno Cobra. I won't talk about details, but mostly what you can see is that he got in an upper level due to his physical condition acquired with a lot of efforts and training. Nuno explains in detailed data how the body and mind reacts during a race, and how Senna could put that to the limits... amazing. What I mean is that beyond the natural gift, he managed to get better with a body fitness.
Well, I'm not a Senna's fan, never been, but I recognize that he started (or was one of them) to praise the body fitness.

[slicktoast]

Getting on the RIGHT team at the RIGHT time! Then having the skill to use it to advantage.

[Valve Bounce]

Originally posted by slicktoast
Getting on the RIGHT team at the RIGHT time! Then having the skill to use it to advantage.

I'll run with this guy - he's got the goods.

[Quino]

This question has always bothered me, since I can't seem to get a clear answer on it. Perhaps the question can't really exist. Let's ask it anyway.

What is it that makes a driver great?

Well, first of all, I don't think it can be measured in statistics. Statistics can only be a help but aren't usefull for determining a certain amount of greatness.

You could run loads of data and compare all sorts of parameters like brakingpoints, speed, racelines. But maybe then all your are doing is defining drivingstyles.

It should be objectively concludable, but since drivers aren't that consequential and all sorts of driving styles have their pro's and con's, we are stuck by are own individual out look on things.

The drivers I like, I like because I believe they are very quick. I want them to do well, but they usually don't. Like Jean Marc Gounon. They guy was amazing in a Ferrari F40 LM, but was he really good in a Simtek F1-car? I'd like to say he was because I already perceived him as being a great driver, but the statistics are against me.

Yes, you could devide the F1-grid into certain drivertype-categories, but are those 2 or 3 categories really that strictly borderlined? Isn't it just the way we percieve a driver which makes us put them in a certain category? I for one would never put Damon Hill in a 'great' category nor would I put Hakkinen even close to an 'analist' category.

So, defining racingdrivers into categories and talent is still just subjected to your own -subjective- outlook on things. Which is great. Every driverdiscussion would end here and now if it wasn't.

[Damon]

Aggreed. I posted this question because it was puzzeling me as well. The boundries between any given driving catagory have to be decidedly blurred due to the fact, as you say, that each style has its pros and cons. I would not put Damon Hill as an 'all time great' either as I don't feel he had that fighters edge and towards the end of his career he didn't have the heart for it either (much like what is happening to Hakkinen at the moment I fear). I placed him in the 1st group because at his best he met the criteria I set. A good qualifier, a great tester and developer and a good consistant driver who had a unique, flowing style of racing.

All time greats are the drivers that get our hearts racing from witnessing what they are doing with a car, the Sennas, the Prosts, the Fangios, the Clarkes, the Schumachers and yes I think the Montoyas.

It is an interesting question and the answers have demonstrated why it is so hard to answer.

[Marshal]

The answer has to be subjective opinion.

I'd list the first division drivers since the war as Fangio, Ascari, Moss, Clark, Villeneuve, Senna and Schumacher. I'm sure many people could disagree that one or two or three others would make their list (my list sometimes includes Stewart for example) but there are a core that most people will agree on. Ergo they are the greats.

(I think it probably reads Fangio, Moss, Clark, Senna, Schumacher)

[pink69]

A good driver needs to be focused at all times , letting nothing distract him and he must be positive at all times , even if things aren't going well.

[Neil C]

Hmmm. Many facets to this gem of a question.

My first reaction to "What makes a driver great?" is: Motorsport Journalists. Cynical, yes, but a legend is not a legend until somebody writes it.

Other than that, I say TimD says it all, except I would consider Niki Lauda, not Alain Prost as the prototype of the analytical, left-brain, driving machine. He was so consistant, his team could measure the effect of minute tweaks by the tenths of seconds of Niki's lap times. (Nevermind the fact that Niki literaly came back from the dead to be World Champion)

At the other end of Tim's spectrum, I would add Gilles V as the epitome of getting eleven tenths from a car, with total disregard for the laws of physics.

[Speed]

Originally posted by Neil C
I would add Gilles V as the epitome of getting eleven tenths from a car, with total disregard for the laws of physics.

Nice & True comment...

[Bononi]

Again we're talking about this, and again we're find it out hard to explain.
I guess that must be thatr way.
Today we have the great in TGF, and everything is pointing out at JPM being the next one, but HEY that shouldn't be this way !!!!

This is what is WRONG !!!!!

Can you remember a time when in the grid we had Lauda, Prost, Piquet, Senna, Mansell and Rosberg (1985) ????

Yes, this is the difference. We keep saying this is one is good, the other is better, but it all depends on the car he drives... and we have to say : "Put him in a Ferrari", "Let him drive a McLaren" ands maybe "If he could be in a Williams..."

Would they really be great ?

[kev]

I don't believe you can define greatness.
A graet driver simply IS.

Stirling Moss for example, never won the WDC, but I think most of us would rate him alongside multiple champions.

Mabey one measure could be the degree a driver is known outside the sport (or was known when he was competing). For (another) example, if I say 'Flo Jo' I don't even need to mention the sport and most people will know who I'm talking about.

[Wrex]

The reason we are having so much trouble with this, is because we are really trying to answer the question "What makes a driver perfect". And the answer is there is no such driver. When we think of any of the 'greats', we can always find imperfections, albeit small, but they exist. Defining a great driver or perfect driver is impossible, we can suggest characteristics, and even names that come close, but in the end we discover that the there is no exact definition.

[RALFANATOR]

really hard this one but teh question was WHAT MAKES A DRIVER GREAT
well I think talent consistancy able to read the race and able to bounce back from misfortune and of course SPEED . Now F1 past is not my area but one and only one driver has it in F1 today and that is MICHAEL SCHUMACER .
An by what I have read in this thread this complete driver is very high in the all time stats
Yes I'am a WILLAMS fan but to say JPM is class as a great is a bit to much yes his showning plenty talent but so have other drivers if JPM win and yes I say if I would like to see it happen an also happen aswell in a weaker car to back up his talent SOMETHING DAMON HILL DIDN'T .
But SCHUEY Snr did.And also bringing FERRARI back to the front (I didn't say single handedly) but is was a major key to the succes of FERRARI.

p.s I'd like to think RS will also be in the running someday SOON

[Liz]

What makes a pilot great? People come to races, or tune in to races, or buy magazines, specifically to see him. They can't tell you why in clear terms, but he is racing to them.

Gilles, Alesi, Senna, Prost, Mario, Ronnie Peterson, Piquet, Manxell, and - alas - TGF - would fit these parameters most especially.

In the end, it is subjective - but when a majority (a sizeable majority) agree on the subject, that makes the pilot great.

I agree with the sentiment that the best pilot is worth watching in any car you give him - that is why Mario is perhaps the greatest of the veteran pilots, as he has won or shown well in every single drive he has had, in whatever formula, even at age 60 in a Le Mans Prototype (although the man who handled his pit board has told me that he considered at several points putting out a signal that said MARIO: GO FASTER!). JPM is following along in this path, as he has won in every series he's been in and always shows well. Zonta did the same, and will eventually do the same again. This, i believe, would be the definition of a "complete" pilot rather than a "great" one though.

[Airhead]

Originally posted by RALFANATOR
[B
p.s I'd like to think RS will also be in the running someday SOON [/B]

Sure,

And my Sainted Grandmother will return from the other side to win the 2002 WDC. I mean it makes as much sense right?

[Damon]

Originally posted by RALFANATOR
I would like to see it happen an also happen aswell in a weaker car to back up his talent SOMETHING DAMON HILL DIDN'T .

Arrows and Jordan (granted only really '98) ring a bell. Hill would have won for Arrows in Hungary '97 if it were not for mechanical failure, somthing no one else has managed to do recently with such a dog of a car. Witness the Benettons this year who are in a similar position to the Arrows in '97.

[TimD]

Damon, I agree with you. Now, I am very fond of Damon Hill, but would not necessarily rank him with the all time megastars. He's quick on his day, he's skilled and he's also a decent man, but the table above which places him in the pantheon of stars on the basis of points per start is, I think, wide of the mark.

But Damon Hill is an excellent example of an analytical driver. A skilled test and development worker, he knew the parameters of his Williams long before he had to race with it. Given the telemetry of what Alain Prost was doing, he analysed his own performance, noted where there was room for more speed, and trained himself to deliver it.

Not a gifted natural, and not a gutsy fighter, his genius is in learning the best way to conduct a car, and having the nerve and the finesse to achieve it.

Something to do with his time as a motorcylist, perhaps?


As an aside, I read an amusing tale about one of the acknowledged greats. Apparently Jim Clark could be an appalling road driver. The man who could make a car dance around a circuit on its tiptoes was prone to silly mishaps on the street. The tale was told of him picking up a complimentary Ford Galaxie 500 from somewhere, and having an accident with it as he pulled out of the parking bay. He was so focused on learning the characteristics of the car from the first moment, that he failed to concentrate on the casual roadgoers around him.

[RussianFriend]

I'll tell the boring thing: only time may judge how great the driver was. If we still remember Sterling Moss who wasn't WDC, he's great. The same with Gill Villneuve.

If the impression of his drive is alive after he'd left the sport years ago, he's great not depending on how many scores he had collected.