The Sky panels Top 5 drivers.

[Wass85]

I think drivers should always be judged compared with their direct rivals, at least the great. With every generation drivers get faster, better prepared and more all round. Look how Schumacher upped the game with his physical fitness or Hamilton with his perfect season.

I don't think it makes that much of a difference when they are fit, Prost was a fit fella and so was Senna.

I never followed Prost during his early career but during the late 80's and early 90's although he was still a star quality I always got the impression he had more in him and performed well within his capabilities.

Fair enough drive slow enough to win but sometimes you got the impression he settled for lesser positions when he could have made a pass.

People now claim Hamilton is like this but I don't agree, the only time Hamilton will do this is if he hasn't really got the pace to win the race.

[3jawchuck]

I remembered that there is this page: https://f1metrics.wordpress.com/

I think the author is a user of this site, although is more prolific on reddit.

They go into quite a lot of depth trying to answer this unanswerable question. They also critique several prior attempts at scientifically answering this question. Regardless of the outcome, I do think their methods seem pretty sound and what they are trying to do is on topic

[SiLo]

Best of their generation
Fangio
Clark
Stewart
Lauda
Senna
Schumacher
Hamilton

I'd agree with this. Seen people putting Verstappen in, are you mad? he's not really done anything in the sport yet.

[Just_a_fan]

I just don't think you can even began to compare them, they raced in an era nothing like each other.

Which is why these comparisons are so silly in the first place. If one says one can't compare between eras then one can only compare within eras. So one can't compare any current driver to Senna / Prost as they were different eras.

Eventually, all you can do is compare team mates as they are the only true direct comparison, and then only where there aren't defined lead driver roles involved.

But if one is going to ask for the greatest 5 drivers, one has to accept the comparison between eras. And in that case, I think Fangio's and Moss's achievements, when viewed in the context that the times were much more dangerous, in general the cars much less reliable, fewer races in a season so they raced many different formulae/types etc., were much more impressive than modern era drivers.

[Wass85]

Best of their generation
Fangio
Clark
Stewart
Lauda
Senna
Schumacher
Hamilton

I'd agree with this. Seen people putting Verstappen in, are you mad? he's not really done anything in the sport yet.

He oozes star quality, Jenson Button has put in on his list.

[Wass85]

I just don't think you can even began to compare them, they raced in an era nothing like each other.

Which is why these comparisons are so silly in the first place. If one says one can't compare between eras then one can only compare within eras. So one can't compare any current driver to Senna / Prost as they were different eras.

Eventually, all you can do is compare team mates as they are the only true direct comparison, and then only where there aren't defined lead driver roles involved.

But if one is going to ask for the greatest 5 drivers, one has to accept the comparison between eras. And in that case, I think Fangio's and Moss's achievements, when viewed in the context that the times were much more dangerous, in general the cars much less reliable, fewer races in a season so they raced many different formulae/types etc., were much more impressive than modern era drivers.

Like I pointed out, there seems to be a certain point in time where they do get compared to each other. Where is this line drawn though?

It's crazy to think that the Prost/Senna era is just about as close to the Fangio/Moss era as it is to the Vettel/Hamilton era.

[Just_a_fan]

Like I pointed out, there seems to be a certain point in time where they do get compared to each other. Where is this line drawn though?

It's crazy to think that the Prost/Senna era is just about as close to the Fangio/Moss era as it is to the Vettel/Hamilton era.

I think Prost/Senna are compared to today's drivers because the cars are, in general terms, similar. Also, the overall feel of the weekend is similar. Prior to then, the whole thing was very much amateur-hour - look at the sad events in Zolder in 1981 and look at how the paddock reacted. Cars racing past a man lying critically injured on the track, people assisting him, marshalls trying to direct cars away even as they were lining up overtakes. The 80s improved the whole set up and it became more like today's highly-controlled events. You still had silly things like Balestre making spur-of-the-moment decisions and arguing with drivers, but it was developing in to a "modern" sport. Before then, it was just high tech cars being run in a way that guys like Fangio and Moss, Clark and Stewart would have recognised.

[Just_a_fan]

Best of their generation
Fangio
Clark
Stewart
Lauda
Senna
Schumacher
Hamilton

I'd agree with this. Seen people putting Verstappen in, are you mad? he's not really done anything in the sport yet.

He oozes star quality, Jenson Button has put in on his list.

I hope, for his sake, that when his chance arrives - when the car is taken out of the equation, if you like - that he delivers. A number of drivers have promised much over the years but then failed to turn blinding speed and ability in to results. If he doesn't win a number of titles, given a suitable car, then the F1 media et al will crucify him.

Look at how some talk about Vettel these days. He's squandered chances and people are very happy to have a go at him, even though he has 4 titles to his name. If they can do that to a champion, imagine what they'll do to the next "star" if he doesn't deliver.

[Wass85]

I'd agree with this. Seen people putting Verstappen in, are you mad? he's not really done anything in the sport yet.

He oozes star quality, Jenson Button has put in on his list.

I hope, for his sake, that when his chance arrives - when the car is taken out of the equation, if you like - that he delivers. A number of drivers have promised much over the years but then failed to turn blinding speed and ability in to results. If he doesn't win a number of titles, given a suitable car, then the F1 media et al will crucify him.

Look at how some talk about Vettel these days. He's squandered chances and people are very happy to have a go at him, even though he has 4 titles to his name. If they can do that to a champion, imagine what they'll do to the next "star" if he doesn't deliver.

Given the car I have full confidence he will dominate, he has shown he has the quality to win races he really shouldn't be. Not many drivers have the talent to do so IMO.

It's of no surprise Vettel has gotten some slack over the years, first of all a 4x world champion should not be getting beat by a much lesser experienced driver in his first year with the team. And then you have the last few seasons that have been littered with mistakes whilst driving a car capable of the title.

[Just_a_fan]

It's of no surprise Vettel has gotten some slack over the years, first of all a 4x world champion should not be getting beat by a much lesser experienced driver in his first year with the team.

There is a precedent, of course...

[Wass85]

Like you said though before, in all honesty you can't even accurately say who's the best driver of an era let alone all time. The saying that the best drivers end up in the best cars rings true though IMO.

[DChemTech]

I suppose Bell et al. should rerun their analysis to include the most recent data to see where Verstappen ends up - Gasly's drive sure didn't do him any harm. Would also be interesting to see how Alonso is affected by his final years (I guess not too much - he was still significantly outperforming teammates. Vettel on the other hand...)

Anyway, it's true that comparing drivers between eras is difficult, if not impossible. Current drivers are pure-bred racing machines - pretty much doing nothing else since birth. The 'old' drivers would not stand
a chance if they stepped in now with the training they had back then. There's a reason we see no serious racing drivers that started racing as adults these years.

On the other hand, current drivers wouldn't last very long in those old cars, too. Current drivers are being used to finding the edge by crossing it every now and then. In the cars of the first few decades of racing, they'd perish quickly if they would drive like that. Driving now requires talent, but also extensive training. Back then, it required talent and balls the size of a hot air balloon. Talent has always been a factor, but the only way you could say something about how big that talent factor was, would be by putting them in equal cars with equal preparation. And that is something that will never happen.

[Wass85]

Hey I believe you if you got any talented driver from any era and put him in current cars he would be just as good in this era as he was back then. The difference is he would be racing against many competitors just as talented as him.

[NathanOlder]

Also add to that, Max has lost in the standings to his team mate 40% of the time (2 out of 5yrs). Lewis has lost to his team mate 15% of his time (2 out of 13yrs). Senna lost to his team mate 10% of the time (1 out of 10yrs). Prost lost to his team mate 23% of the time (3 out of 13yrs). Schumacher lost 16% of the time (3 out of 18yrs, could be 4 if you count 97 so would be 22%).

Looking at this, Max has nearly doubled anyone else's % on this short list, so I am also confused as to why he is on the list. He has to potential to be one of the greats, even the greatest, but at the moment he isn't so.......

Another thing to look at is strength of team mate. Max has lined up against Sainz (rookie like Max) , Ricciardo , Gasly (1yr exp.) , Albon (rookie). In my opinion a weak line up with their experience at the times. Only one with the skill and experience, and that was Ricciardo who beat max 66% of the time as team mates.

[Wass85]

Also add to that, Max has lost in the standings to his team mate 40% of the time (2 out of 5yrs). Lewis has lost to his team mate 15% of his time (2 out of 13yrs). Senna lost to his team mate 10% of the time (1 out of 10yrs). Prost lost to his team mate 23% of the time (3 out of 13yrs). Schumacher lost 16% of the time (3 out of 18yrs, could be 4 if you count 97 so would be 22%).

Looking at this, Max has nearly doubled anyone else's % on this short list, so I am also confused as to why he is on the list. He has to potential to be one of the greats, even the greatest, but at the moment he isn't so.......

Another thing to look at is strength of team mate. Max has lined up against Sainz (rookie like Max) , Ricciardo , Gasly (1yr exp.) , Albon (rookie). In my opinion a weak line up with their experience at the times. Only one with the skill and experience, and that was Ricciardo who beat max 66% of the time as team mates.

Let's see how his career pans out first but you're seriously going to count 2016 against him? You think that is a fair comparison with Ricciardo? To run Ricciardo that close despite no testing in the Red Bull and not joining the team until the Spanish GP shows how good he is.

You also fail to acknowledge that Verstappen basically ran Ricciardo out of the team as he was dominating him in every aspect of the game.

Let's not forget that Ricciardo also did the same to a 4x world champion in Vettel.

I agree on an ATG list he shouldn't be there yet but on a H2H basis he's got to be in the conversation.