F1 drivers categorised

[The Stig]

F1 drivers could fall into the following groups

Future champions from an early age.
Piquet, Mansell, Hakkinen, Villenueve and Schumacher-Michael
Possibles - Alonso and Raikkonen

Quick drivers who flattered to decieve.
Alesi, Johnny Herbert, Trulli, Frentzen, Barrichello, Schumacher-Ralf, Montoya and Fisichella.
Possibles - David Coulthard, Button.

Solid performers, not blindingly quick.
Prost, Berger, Brundle.

Stinkers.
Michael Andretti

Given these four categories, anybody else any thoughts.

[bramble]

You forgot Massacane (spelling) in the stinkers. Seems pretty accurate to me, most F1 drivers do seem to fit into catagories.

[V6.]

How about the silver spoon scumbags

Young
Diniz
Marques

[Stuart]

Prost may not have been the quickest but he was always going to be a champion...

Stinkers - Jean-Dennis Deletraz

[Peter]

I think you are a little unfair to place Alain Prost in the not blindingly quick category.

Add Alex Yoong and Rosset to the stinkers group!

[Claw]

Future champions - Alonso, Raikkonen and Trulli. :D

Underrated - Frentzen, Panis, Fisichella and Heidfeld
Overrated - Both Schumachers, Mutton, Barrichello and Prost


Solid performers, not blindingly quick.
Prost, Berger, Brundle.

Prost was boring and trailed behind the likes of Senna, Mansell and Piquet and just waited for them to trip over each other and claim good points.

Stinkers - Mazzacane, Yoong, Delatraz, Lavaggi and worst of all Belmondo!

[speedy]

Herbert was going places in racing before he had his accident, and after it he just wasn't as quick (after he had recovered).

I remember reading somewhere that in his first F1 test (in a Benetton turbocar when he was racing F3 - even bigger power hike than these days), he was only 3 tenths off Mansells time. And that was on a first test!

I wouldn't say Manselll and Villeneuve were champion material from early age - Mansell didn't get the breaks in junior categories, and was a big ragged at Lotus.
Villeneuve didn't exactly wipe the floor with his rivals in Italian F3 - he only started to come good when he went to japan, and had some good stability in the states.

I think you could add Senna to the potential champion from early age category though - he didnt take long to be quick in F1 at all.

[Claw]

Originally posted by speedy
I think you could add Senna to the potential champion from early age category though - he didnt take long to be quick in F1 at all.


Yeah i've heard the stats and they sound incredible.

His Formula ford season in 1982 he had 27 starts and 21 wins! :eek:
And in 1983 the year before his debut in F1 he had 12 wins with West surrey racing.

Spectacular stats.

[The Stig]

I really can't believe I missed Ayrton Senna from the first category.
He above all was destined to be World Champion, if anyone was.
Would have loved to see him and Schumacher senior in decent equipment. They both had the ability to drag under performing teams forward. Martin Brundle kept Senna honest, believe it or not in their respective early days, how careers progress.
Johnny Herbert wasn't quite right after his accident was he ?
Think he also tried one maybe two Grand Prix shortly afterwards but couldn't use his foot properly for breaking.
Arguably, the biggest category is the quick drivers, informed people rave about, who never go that one step further to real greatness.

[Claw]

Originally posted by The Stig
Martin Brundle kept Senna honest, believe it or not in their respective early days, how careers progress.


Johnny Herbert wasn't quite right after his accident was he ?
Think he also tried one maybe two Grand Prix shortly afterwards but couldn't use his foot properly for breaking.



Brundle was very underrated I feel, and he was very experiance and knew what he was doing and it was very rare to see martin make an error in an F1 car.

I think Herbert came 4th in his first F1 race didn't he? Driving a Benetton in 198? ?

[cos]

Originally posted by V6.
How about the silver spoon scumbags

Young
Diniz
Marques

I don't think Diniz was too bad.. sure he was a 'pay-driver' but at least he had some decent results and knew when to call it a day to let more worthy (Kimi!) take his place.

[Claw]

Originally posted by V6.
How about the silver spoon scumbags


Marques


I think that's going to far. He was alot better than some people think!

He had 2 races for Minardi in 1996 where, he qualifyed 19th out of 22 at Brazil, beating experiance team-mate Pedro Lamy, but his time was disallowed and he was thrown to the back. His race wasn't as succesful, he spun on the first lap, but remember it was raining just as bad as Brazil 2003.

Argentina was even better! He qualifyed an amazing 14th! Even ahead of people like Brundle and Herbert and outdoing team-mate Lamy by 1.2 seconds. In the race he was battling with Brundles Jordan, but sadley the Briton decided to brake test him and Tarso rammed the back of him!
That was the end of Tarso's 1996 adventure as he ran out of money and Fisichella took his ride.

He returned in 1997 with Minardi. But it looked like he may have got an Arrows drive, being faster than Verstappen and Rosset.
He replaced Trulli at Minardi as the Italian went to Prost. The 97 Minardi was a dog and mostly qualifyed on the back row with Katayma. But by the end of the season he was getting his Minardi up to 17th, ahead of the Tyrrells. His highest finish being 10th at Silverstone.

2001 he was back again with Minardi. He was last on the grid for most of the time, but his car was no where near as good as Alonso's. The team concentrated on Alonso, and his car had inferior equitment. He found the groved cars a handful, but he managed a seasons best at Malaysia outqualifying Alonso and Bernoldi. But be Monza the team re-placed him, because Yoong brought more money to the struggling team.

Marques I feel could have done alot given a better can than just a Minardi!

:)

[Ed- the MG fan]

I can't believe that you put Frentzen + fisi in this catorgory

Quick drivers who flattered to decieve.

Fretzen has always imprssed me. He even came close to winning the drivers championship with a Jordan. And last year he took that dog of a Arrows to 2 points place. I was completly stunned when he set that fasted lap in silverstone last year on the wet track, and had the chance to get to the poduim, and when he re-over took a recovering Shcumacher at Sepang

Fisi- he's always impressed me and always outperformed his team mates. He has just never had to right car under him.

But Ralph Schumacher is one of the most rubbish and annying drivers ever. I can't stand Montoya either, but he makes his team mate look stupid.

[delos]

Overated - Montoya ( yes I know he just won ) but he doesn't know when to back down or run easy that's why he keeps blowing up his engine as for Ralph Schumacher why has he still got a seat at williams ?.............
Williams had the original contract on Button and with decent and reliable equipment under him Button could be the wonder boy everyone predicted at the beginning, I for one would like to see him or Webber in a williams next year...........
Over the hill moaner - Villneuve, he cant stand the heat from Button, he's lost the edge , he was world champion once, back in nineteen oatcake and still expects top dollar for few cents performance, quicker he retires the better..........
Future Champs ..... Kimi, Alonso, Button, Webber and you can't rule out dark horse DC - I'd like to see Justin Wilson in a decent machine based on his performance in other championships I think he could be a real surprise......
Complete waste of space - Ralph Firman, send him back to his tractor in Norwich, he hasn't got a hope in hell.

[Reynard]

I don't think Montoya is over rated - I love watching a driver who is as forceful and determined as he is. His never-say-die attitude and his undoubted ability remind me somewhat of both Gilles Villeneuve and Manfred Winkelhock. (Yes, I am that old...)

I think that the description of Alain Prost is little bit unfair too. OK, he might not have been blindingly quick, but he was a master tactician, a driver who excelled in keeping his nose clean while all hell was breaking loose around him. Canny and subtle rather than impetuous, he had the knack of being in the right place at the right time as well as understanding the limitations of his machinery.

Driving in an era where the cars had more in common with hand grenades, Alain invariably brought his car home in the points - his consecutive championships in 1985 and 1986 are proof to that. In 1985, the Ferrari F156/85 was the car to have, but all too often it broke - Alain (McLaren MP4/2B) took the title after Michele Alboreto lost out as a result of one engine failure too many. In 1986, the Williams FW11 was undoubtedly a far superior car to the MP4/2C but both Williams drivers (Mansell and Piquet) lost out by overdriving their machinery and throwing away good results a few times too often.

Although Alain Prost's watch-and-wait attitude may not neccesarily have endeared him to some of the fans, it certainly proved successful - you only need to have a look at the stats.

Mansell - he's a driver who although competent, doesn't have a great deal of natural ability. His driving style had all the subtlety of a brick, and in a less-than-perfect car, you could always see him struggle. I honestly don't think he would have been champion if the Williams hadn't been the class of the field by far. Mind you, one could never fault him for trying...

Damon Hill - he's a bit like Mansell really. Distinctly ordinary in junior formulae Damon never really shone. Particularly in F3 where he certainly didn't endear himself to Paul Warwick who was sadly antagonised by Damon... Never mind that, I don't doubt Damon's ability to develop a car, but quite frankly, as a race driver he doesn't cut it. It is a completely different set of skills that are required, which Damon doesn't have - wouldn't have won if the Williams hadn't been that good.

Right, I'll get off my soap box now and go and do some work ;)

[kevin ritson]

wouldn't have won if the Williams hadn't been that good.

So that near-win in the Reliable-as-a-Fiat and Fast-as-a-Lada Arrows was a fluke then? Or how about the Jordan win when he was only second to Schumacher in a vastly better car (and as for the cries of "But Ralf would have overtaken him given the chance...he only got close thanks to the safety car and he would still have had to overtake...)

Sure Damon only started to show class in F3000 when he led loads of races (and failed to finish) but who else stood up to Schumacher in 1994? And as the old joke goes, 22 "lucky" wins:D

Most champions have the best car, only the very few can transcend a bad car and Damon surely came close to that category with the Arrows for at least one race.

[Reynard]

OK, you've laid down a challenge. So let me debate the issue:

The Arrows result was a fluke - purely down to Bridgestone getting the tyres absolutely right and Goodyear getting theirs completely wrong. You'd be surprised to find out exactly how important the right tyres (compound, construction, temperature, air pressure) are in the performance of an F1 car.

Believe me, the 1997 Arrows was a pile of manure - I have that on good authority - but under the right circumstances, an absolutely DIRE car can shine. A case in point is Derek Warwick in the Toleman at the 1982 British GP - same difference. It was all down to the tyres and the fuel load, or how else could a Toleman overtake a Ferrari to run second on the road? Flatter to decieve - I think so.

The Jordan win? Well, it's more a case of being in exactly the right place at the right time. Motor racing involves a distinct element of luck... At Spa, everyone else was either a) falling off the road or b) driving into each other. Winning is as much about keeping it on the grey stuff as much as anything else, but mind you, team politics (and orders) play a pretty big part as well.

Ralf was considerably faster than Damon in the closing stages of the race, but there was a clause in their contracts that prevented Ralf from getting past - a very similar thing to what Ferrari pulled in Austria last year, but because it was Jordan and because it was Hill, no one said very much about it.

14 cars retired from that race - most of them being from the major teams i.e. Ferrari, McLaren, Benetton & Williams. remove those from the equation and anything can happen - just look at Fisichella in Brazil this year for an example.

Other than the one win for Jordan, all of Damon's wins came for Williams - undeniably the team with the best car in F1 from 1991 through to 1997. Driving for Williams certainly tipped the balance hugely in Damon's favour, though having the best car doesn't always guarantee success.

There have been many occasions where the championship has NOT been won by the driver in the best car: Rosberg (1982, Williams), Piquet (1983, Brabham), Prost (1985/6, McLaren), Hakinnen (McLaren) just to quote a few examples. The mark of a good (and even a great) driver is the ability to win and to be consistent in machinery that doesn't quite hack it. Damon Hill, when in a less than top line car, proved to be sorely lacking in this respect. Mansell was the same...

I mean look at Damon's woeful attempts at trying to clinch the 1996 championship. He had the opportunity to win it with four, five rounds to spare, but then started to make really stupid mistakes - like when he spun at Monza, throwing away the points score that would have clinched him the title. It was a perfect example of how to lose a championship, not in how to win one.

[Stuart]

The thing with Montoya is that he is a RACER not a DRIVER.
To often in single seaters, the drivers can drive the cars but can rarely actually race wheel to wheel.
This is where, once again, the difference between a great champion and a champion is illustrated. Hakkinen can drive fast but I never felt he could go wheel to wheel with anyone for very long. Prost was capable of it but was such a master tactician that he didn't need to.
The greatest ever F1 RACER, though was Gilles Villeneuve.
Reynard will back me on this one - Arnoux versus Villeneuve at Dijon was some of the most incredible F1 action ever!
I hope that someday we will get something similar from Schuey and Monty...

One to add to the under-rated (and sorely missed) catagory would be Stefan Bellof - a great all rounder who never had the machinery to show his true talent.

[Reynard]

I'm with you on that one Stuart - Gilles Villeneuve was the greatest RACER in F1.

His wheel-banging with Arnoux at Dijon in 1979 was the most hair-raising battle I've ever seen, and that in the days where the slightest mistake could be fatal. With safety far less of a concern, and with the old aluminium chassis, it beggars belief that they drove so close together, just fractions of an inch away from disaster.

What it shows - if anything - is the respect and trust of both men for the other not to make a mistake. Can you say that for any drivers today? Unfortunately the modern F1 cars with their far more sophisticated aerodynamics and narrower tyres prevent cars from running as close as Villeneuve and Arnoux did, so we will probably never see the lies of this again - unless you watch Mini Se7ens, that is.

Gilles was capable of taking any racing car (F1, F Atlantic etc) and wringing the living daylights out of it in an attempt to get just that little bit of extra speed out of the car. For instance, when he made his GP debut in the 3rd Mclaren at the 1977 British GP, Gilles' way of learning both the car and the circuit was to go over the limit i.e. spinning and gradually work his way down to the knife-edge of just about being in control of the car. Somehow you can't imagine any current driver learning about a car and circuit that way. (OK, maybe Montoya, but then again...)

McLaren dithered on deciding about retaining Gilles on a permanent basis after his Silverstone performance, but Gilles' driving style so impressed Enzo Ferrari, that within weeks, he was contracted to Ferrari from 1978 onwards. The rest, as they say, is history.

[Ed- the MG fan]

14 cars retired from that race - most of them being from the major teams i.e. Ferrari, McLaren, Benetton & Williams. remove those from the equation and anything can happen - just look at Fisichella in Brazil this year for an example.


But unlike that Spa Race Fisi was on an absolute charge in the last 10 laps, he set that fastest lap. People say it was done to the Bridgestones, but he was abslouty flying compared to the like of JV whos BAR is far much better. Looking at the gaps between each driver before the Red Flag came out Fisi would have still got on the poduim, and if he kept Kimi behind him he would have got second.

I don't think it was pure luck. Even James Allan and Martin Brudle said during the race that the win would come down to driver skill, and it did.

GET Ralph Schumacher out of Williams. Yes he gets to the car to the points, but Montoya is always way ahead of him. I know that part of the reason he's in the team is due to being German to please BMW, but can't they replace him with Hiedfled or someone?

[Claw]

Originally posted by Ed- the MG fan
GET Ralf Schumacher out of Williams. Yes he gets to the car to the points, but Montoya is always way ahead of him. I know that part of the reason he's in the team is due to being German to please BMW, but can't they replace him with Heidfeld or someone?

Yeah, Ralf is consistant, but consistantly in 4th, 5th, 6th or 7th at the end of the race. Montoya has had retirements, but through other peoples, and one retirement was when he was in the lead. Ralf hasn't even had one podium this year, while JPM has had a win, and a second, when they could have both been wins!

To replace him?

Trulli
Heidfeld
Fisichella
Webber :rolleyes:
Villenuve? That would be interesting!

[Peter]

I think your comments on Damon are very unfair.


The Arrows result was a fluke - purely down to Bridgestone getting the tyres absolutely right and Goodyear getting theirs completely wrong. You'd be surprised to find out exactly how important the right tyres (compound, construction, temperature, air pressure) are in the performance of an F1 car.

I do not deny that the Goodyear tyres were seriously blistering in Hungary. However, Damon was the only Bridgestone runner to qualify the top 10- no mean feat when the Prost team were so competitive that year. He was also 15 places ahead of his team mate on the grid, proving that it was Damon and not the set up of the car that was effective.



The Jordan win? Well, it's more a case of being in exactly the right place at the right time. Motor racing involves a distinct element of luck... At Spa, everyone else was either a) falling off the road or b) driving into each other. Winning is as much about keeping it on the grey stuff as much as anything else, but mind you, team politics (and orders) play a pretty big part as well.

Damon was the driver of the day on that occasion, because he was one of the elites who did not make vital mistakes. This is purely down to skill.


Ralf was considerably faster than Damon in the closing stages of the race, but there was a clause in their contracts that prevented Ralf from getting past - a very similar thing to what Ferrari pulled in Austria last year, but because it was Jordan and because it was Hill, no one said very much about it.

Damon was not as lucky as you may suggest. It was the safety car which destroyed his strong lead. Had it not been for the safety car, the Ralf issue would never have existed. Although Ralf was initially lapping three seconds a lap faster than Damon after the restart, his lap times were actually the same as Damon's shortly before he was asked not to overtake. Besides, Damon was simply being conservative, as there was no need to take risks- the sign of a champion.


Other than the one win for Jordan, all of Damon's wins came for Williams - undeniably the team with the best car in F1 from 1991 through to 1997. Driving for Williams certainly tipped the balance hugely in Damon's favour, though having the best car doesn't always guarantee success.

Damon did indeed have one of the best cars throughout his career, however it was thanks to his technical input that the car was so fast. Mansell will tell you what an effective test driver he was. I would not say the Williams was always the best car- in 1994 Senna struggled to keep up with Schumacher's Benetton during the races. Like you say the best car does not always guarantee success, and it certainly did not in 1995. To win a title, you need a great car, a good strategist and reliability- Damon lacked those two things.


I mean look at Damon's woeful attempts at trying to clinch the 1996 championship. He had the opportunity to win it with four, five rounds to spare, but then started to make really stupid mistakes - like when he spun at Monza, throwing away the points score that would have clinched him the title. It was a perfect example of how to lose a championship, not in how to win one.

Damon could only wrap up the title with two races to go, with Monza being the earliest chance. Monza was one of only two mistakes that season. Drivers are only human. Villeneuve certainly made a lot more in 1997 with mistakes in Australia, Brazil, France, Canada, Germany and Japan. It was not Damon's fault he didn't clinch the crown in Portugal- he had a clutch problem.

[Claw]

Originally posted by Reynard
The Jordan win? Well, it's more a case of being in exactly the right place at the right time. Motor racing involves a distinct element of luck... At Spa, everyone else was either a) falling off the road or b) driving into each other. Winning is as much about keeping it on the grey stuff as much as anything else, but mind you, team politics (and orders) play a pretty big part as well.

Ralf was considerably faster than Damon in the closing stages of the race, but there was a clause in their contracts that prevented Ralf from getting past - a very similar thing to what Ferrari pulled in Austria last year, but because it was Jordan and because it was Hill, no one said very much about it.

14 cars retired from that race - most of them being from the major teams i.e. Ferrari, McLaren, Benetton & Williams. remove those from the equation and anything can happen - just look at Fisichella in Brazil this year for an example.



You forget that Damon qualifyed 3rd on the grid infront of both Williams, Benettons and the great cheat, and only 2 cars infront of him were the McLarens. On the restart he took the lead and lead for the next 8 or 9 laps, untill MS overtook him. He remained in second untill MS retired, took the lead and took it easy! He wasn't assisted by the retirements as he was infront of them when they retired! :rolleyes:
He was never out of the top 2 all race. He was there on merit, drivers like DC, Irvine, Fisichella, Villenuve, Frentzen were behind him when they retired!
As for Ralf being quicker, i'm glad that idiot didn't win. He was wild in 97 and 98 and didn't deserve the win. Damon kept his head drove well and came through while others were crashing.

[The Stig]

You might find Damon won the race due to team orders or contractual obligations imposed upon Ralf Schumacher. These same obligations which prevented Ralf, were the same ones which so incensed Michael Schumacher, that Schumacher Senior barged into the Jordan motorhome demanding an explanation.

[cos]

Interesting thread this...

Ralf only closed up on Damon after the safety car had been deployed (for Fisichella's accident I think). EJ, quite sensibly, didn't want Ralf to attempt a move on Damon in case it went wrong and ruined a possible 1st win for the team. Ralf hadn't exactly proved himself to be cautious or careful during his first 2 seasons so EJ told him not to challenge Damon for the win.

[Claw]

Good - Can't pass didn't deserve that win. And today he still can't pass! Ralf should ****** off out of F1. :mad:

[The Stig]

At that point in time, Ralf was in and out of court trying to get released from his contract in order to start his Williams drive. In this respect Damon was lucky in that Ralf could easily have chosen to ignore team orders and attempted to overtake.

Claw, you might have a point about Ralf and the passing, particularly after Montreal on Sunday. I was itching for Patrick Head to make Ralf yield and then let Montoya off the leash after
Shuntmaker Senior. They may have both ended up in the scenery, which isn't ncessarily a bad thing.

[Frank Rizzo]

I bow to the vast amount of knowledge herein.

Montoya - how anyone doesn't rate him is beyond me. He's exciting, brave, flambouyant and extremely fast. I thought those were the attributes of champion racers.

What really p*ssed me off was arrogant Brawn's comments after the European GP last week. He slated Montoya for the incident with MS saying he had no class!!!!!

No, Ross. He went round the outside, legitimately, and left enough room for the guy he was overtaking. He did not lose traction, did not spin, and did not shut the door. YOUR driver, however, took his eye off the ball in his desperation not to be overtaken, and let the front understeer into JPM's Williams, causing, unusually, his own car to spin. Even MS conceded that he had nothing to complain about.

Ferrari are a great team, but are so up their own a*seholes it makes me sick sometimes. He should have been commending JPM graciously - this is a sport, act sportingly.

[Claw]

Brawn calls Montoya classless.

Were Jerez 97, Adalaide 94, team orders, race fixing and boring parades classy Ross?

[speedy]

Ross was a bit out of order I think - even Schumi himself described it as a 'racing incident', and he was more involved than Brawn back in the pits!