The Sky panels Top 5 drivers.

[Wass85]

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

Interesting list, surprised to see Alonso so high and Hamilton so low but thinking about it it is understandable.

Yes Hamilton gave Alonso all he could handle but I don't think this was Alonso at his best, he just mentally wasn't at the races and was in turmoil with the team.

You have to look at his career on the whole, his performances have been exceptional in every car he's driven and has dominated his teammates something rotten.

He is the blueprint for being in the wrong car at the wrong time, a shame we didn't see him fighting for the title towards the end of his career.

[Just_a_fan]

He is the blueprint for being in the wrong car at the wrong time, a shame we didn't see him fighting for the title towards the end of his career.

This is an interesting point. In order to have a chance of winning you do need a competitive car and a team that is able to help you. That doesn't necessarily mean team orders, although they obviously help a lot in some cases, but a team that is able to react, to win the strategy battles etc.

Look at the Mercedes team in the hybrid era to date, the RedBull team of 2010-2014, Ferrari 2000-2004 as recent examples.

Put Alonso, or Vettel or Hamilton or Schumacher in any of those and you're looking at multiple title wins. Likewise, if you could have put Senna or Prost or Stewart or Clark or Moss or Fangio in those same situations you'd see the same thing.

What makes the best in to the best is the ability to take the opportunity and make it work for them, and to perform at a high level for a long period in order to benefit fully from the opportunity.

There's no doubt that Hamilton has benefited from an excellent series of cars produced by the class team of the moment, but he has had to drive at a very high level, consistently, for several years to take advantage. Likewise Schumacher in 2000-2004. And also, when things aren't going according to plan, being able to maximise any possible value to be had from the race. Ask Rosberg how difficult it is to do that against a team mate who is equally as focused, quick, etc. Look at Bottas 2.0 - couldn't keep it going for whatever reason. Maybe Bottas 3.0 will be better, we'll have to wait and see.

I think Schumacher was helped by team mates that weren't as quick as him and were compliant to team orders, although Rubens did occasionally do a better job. But that's the thing - it was on occasions, not all the time.

I think for any driver to be considered for the top slots, you have to look at who they had in the other side of the garage. Beating guys who are obviously not up to standard is no great result. It's expected (and that does create its own pressure, of course). But if the team mate is as fast, or at least in the same quarter of a second, then that's more telling if you can beat him consistently. I think that's one area that marks out Hamilton - he has had some quality team mates over the years. Sure, Kovalainen wasn't a top drawer guy (more a Rubens than a Michael) and Bottas is quick but variable, but Alonso, Button and Rosberg were all top drawer drivers. All won titles so their ability can't be argued. Even "lucking in" to a title still requires you to have been at the front enough to make points. Especially if you're racing one of the best as Rosberg had to.

These discussions are interesting but they are kind of theological. And I mean that in the sense that you can discuss and argue all you like but there will never be a definitive answer. There will never be proof. The end result will always be based on belief of some form. Belief that one aspect is more important than another, that one driver is "just better" than another. Even the attempts at so-called scientific comparisons suffer from the system chosen to compare them. The discussions are fun but pointless. So let's all keep it fun. We have so far.

[ENGINE TUNER]

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.

Verstappen has done plenty, he caused 10 collisions last year alone

Crashed into SAI in Bahrain
Crashed into BOT in Monaco
Crashed into HAM in Monaco
Crashed into LEC in Austria
Touched LEC at Silverstone
Crashed into Kimi in Spa, TWICE!
Crashed into someone at Monza T1
Crashed into HAM in Mexico
Crashed into BOT in Mexico
Crashed into MAG in Mexico

[Wass85]

He is the blueprint for being in the wrong car at the wrong time, a shame we didn't see him fighting for the title towards the end of his career.

This is an interesting point. In order to have a chance of winning you do need a competitive car and a team that is able to help you. That doesn't necessarily mean team orders, although they obviously help a lot in some cases, but a team that is able to react, to win the strategy battles etc.

Look at the Mercedes team in the hybrid era to date, the RedBull team of 2010-2014, Ferrari 2000-2004 as recent examples.

Put Alonso, or Vettel or Hamilton or Schumacher in any of those and you're looking at multiple title wins. Likewise, if you could have put Senna or Prost or Stewart or Clark or Moss or Fangio in those same situations you'd see the same thing.

What makes the best in to the best is the ability to take the opportunity and make it work for them, and to perform at a high level for a long period in order to benefit fully from the opportunity.

There's no doubt that Hamilton has benefited from an excellent series of cars produced by the class team of the moment, but he has had to drive at a very high level, consistently, for several years to take advantage. Likewise Schumacher in 2000-2004. And also, when things aren't going according to plan, being able to maximise any possible value to be had from the race. Ask Rosberg how difficult it is to do that against a team mate who is equally as focused, quick, etc. Look at Bottas 2.0 - couldn't keep it going for whatever reason. Maybe Bottas 3.0 will be better, we'll have to wait and see.

I think Schumacher was helped by team mates that weren't as quick as him and were compliant to team orders, although Rubens did occasionally do a better job. But that's the thing - it was on occasions, not all the time.

I think for any driver to be considered for the top slots, you have to look at who they had in the other side of the garage. Beating guys who are obviously not up to standard is no great result. It's expected (and that does create its own pressure, of course). But if the team mate is as fast, or at least in the same quarter of a second, then that's more telling if you can beat him consistently. I think that's one area that marks out Hamilton - he has had some quality team mates over the years. Sure, Kovalainen wasn't a top drawer guy (more a Rubens than a Michael) and Bottas is quick but variable, but Alonso, Button and Rosberg were all top drawer drivers. All won titles so their ability can't be argued. Even "lucking in" to a title still requires you to have been at the front enough to make points. Especially if you're racing one of the best as Rosberg had to.

These discussions are interesting but they are kind of theological. And I mean that in the sense that you can discuss and argue all you like but there will never be a definitive answer. There will never be proof. The end result will always be based on belief of some form. Belief that one aspect is more important than another, that one driver is "just better" than another. Even the attempts at so-called scientific comparisons suffer from the system chosen to compare them. The discussions are fun but pointless. So let's all keep it fun. We have so far.

I read something interesting earlier that I'd never seen before.

Prost in the early 2000's claimed Honda favoured Senna when they were teammates, enough that they were giving them different settings in qualifying and sometimes in the race.

I find it hard to believe that any team will just favour a driver because of their personality but who knows, the likes of Schumacher were clear number 1 at their team because they were much better than their teammates. Schumi was showing star quality from his very first race in F1.

[DChemTech]

He is the blueprint for being in the wrong car at the wrong time, a shame we didn't see him fighting for the title towards the end of his career.

This is an interesting point. In order to have a chance of winning you do need a competitive car and a team that is able to help you. That doesn't necessarily mean team orders, although they obviously help a lot in some cases, but a team that is able to react, to win the strategy battles etc.

Look at the Mercedes team in the hybrid era to date, the RedBull team of 2010-2014, Ferrari 2000-2004 as recent examples.

Put Alonso, or Vettel or Hamilton or Schumacher in any of those and you're looking at multiple title wins. Likewise, if you could have put Senna or Prost or Stewart or Clark or Moss or Fangio in those same situations you'd see the same thing.

What makes the best in to the best is the ability to take the opportunity and make it work for them, and to perform at a high level for a long period in order to benefit fully from the opportunity.

There's no doubt that Hamilton has benefited from an excellent series of cars produced by the class team of the moment, but he has had to drive at a very high level, consistently, for several years to take advantage. Likewise Schumacher in 2000-2004. And also, when things aren't going according to plan, being able to maximise any possible value to be had from the race. Ask Rosberg how difficult it is to do that against a team mate who is equally as focused, quick, etc. Look at Bottas 2.0 - couldn't keep it going for whatever reason. Maybe Bottas 3.0 will be better, we'll have to wait and see.

I think Schumacher was helped by team mates that weren't as quick as him and were compliant to team orders, although Rubens did occasionally do a better job. But that's the thing - it was on occasions, not all the time.

I think for any driver to be considered for the top slots, you have to look at who they had in the other side of the garage. Beating guys who are obviously not up to standard is no great result. It's expected (and that does create its own pressure, of course). But if the team mate is as fast, or at least in the same quarter of a second, then that's more telling if you can beat him consistently. I think that's one area that marks out Hamilton - he has had some quality team mates over the years. Sure, Kovalainen wasn't a top drawer guy (more a Rubens than a Michael) and Bottas is quick but variable, but Alonso, Button and Rosberg were all top drawer drivers. All won titles so their ability can't be argued. Even "lucking in" to a title still requires you to have been at the front enough to make points. Especially if you're racing one of the best as Rosberg had to.

These discussions are interesting but they are kind of theological. And I mean that in the sense that you can discuss and argue all you like but there will never be a definitive answer. There will never be proof. The end result will always be based on belief of some form. Belief that one aspect is more important than another, that one driver is "just better" than another. Even the attempts at so-called scientific comparisons suffer from the system chosen to compare them. The discussions are fun but pointless. So let's all keep it fun. We have so far.

I read something interesting earlier that I'd never seen before.

Prost in the early 2000's claimed Honda favoured Senna when they were teammates, enough that they were giving them different settings in qualifying and sometimes in the race.

I find it hard to believe that any team will just favour a driver because of their personality but who knows, the likes of Schumacher were clear number 1 at their team because they were much better than their teammates. Schumi was showing star quality from his very first race in F1.

Verstappen Sr. was quite convinced he and Schumacher did not have the same car either. Even if teammates have in principle the same car, often one is favored with updates if only one is available.

[Wass85]

This is an interesting point. In order to have a chance of winning you do need a competitive car and a team that is able to help you. That doesn't necessarily mean team orders, although they obviously help a lot in some cases, but a team that is able to react, to win the strategy battles etc.

Look at the Mercedes team in the hybrid era to date, the RedBull team of 2010-2014, Ferrari 2000-2004 as recent examples.

Put Alonso, or Vettel or Hamilton or Schumacher in any of those and you're looking at multiple title wins. Likewise, if you could have put Senna or Prost or Stewart or Clark or Moss or Fangio in those same situations you'd see the same thing.

What makes the best in to the best is the ability to take the opportunity and make it work for them, and to perform at a high level for a long period in order to benefit fully from the opportunity.

There's no doubt that Hamilton has benefited from an excellent series of cars produced by the class team of the moment, but he has had to drive at a very high level, consistently, for several years to take advantage. Likewise Schumacher in 2000-2004. And also, when things aren't going according to plan, being able to maximise any possible value to be had from the race. Ask Rosberg how difficult it is to do that against a team mate who is equally as focused, quick, etc. Look at Bottas 2.0 - couldn't keep it going for whatever reason. Maybe Bottas 3.0 will be better, we'll have to wait and see.

I think Schumacher was helped by team mates that weren't as quick as him and were compliant to team orders, although Rubens did occasionally do a better job. But that's the thing - it was on occasions, not all the time.

I think for any driver to be considered for the top slots, you have to look at who they had in the other side of the garage. Beating guys who are obviously not up to standard is no great result. It's expected (and that does create its own pressure, of course). But if the team mate is as fast, or at least in the same quarter of a second, then that's more telling if you can beat him consistently. I think that's one area that marks out Hamilton - he has had some quality team mates over the years. Sure, Kovalainen wasn't a top drawer guy (more a Rubens than a Michael) and Bottas is quick but variable, but Alonso, Button and Rosberg were all top drawer drivers. All won titles so their ability can't be argued. Even "lucking in" to a title still requires you to have been at the front enough to make points. Especially if you're racing one of the best as Rosberg had to.

These discussions are interesting but they are kind of theological. And I mean that in the sense that you can discuss and argue all you like but there will never be a definitive answer. There will never be proof. The end result will always be based on belief of some form. Belief that one aspect is more important than another, that one driver is "just better" than another. Even the attempts at so-called scientific comparisons suffer from the system chosen to compare them. The discussions are fun but pointless. So let's all keep it fun. We have so far.

I read something interesting earlier that I'd never seen before.

Prost in the early 2000's claimed Honda favoured Senna when they were teammates, enough that they were giving them different settings in qualifying and sometimes in the race.

I find it hard to believe that any team will just favour a driver because of their personality but who knows, the likes of Schumacher were clear number 1 at their team because they were much better than their teammates. Schumi was showing star quality from his very first race in F1.

Verstappen Sr. was quite convinced he and Schumacher did not have the same car either. Even if teammates have in principle the same car, often one is favored with updates if only one is available.

Jo Ramirez basically confirmed this but I must say this surprised me greatly, I always thought Prost was the political one but it looks as though Senna was just as bad.

Prost gave himself winning the French GP in dominating fashion as evidence Honda was using different engines or engine modes to suit their drivers.

I can accept that these things have happened in the past but I can't understand why a team would favour the lesser driver. Unless the team are at war with a driver I just can't see the logic in it.

[Andres125sx]

would be fun to make a list of which driver drives with what body part. like:

Head:
- Prost
- Lauda
- Schumacher
- Alonso

Heart:
- Senna
- Verstappen
- Hamilton

Balls:
- Hunt
- G. Villeneuve
- Mansell



etc etc etc

Good idea, actually I would enjoy that debate much much better. The usual Who´s the very best ever debate is boring to me, how do you compare Hill, Senna and Alonso for example? There´s no way, so it will be an absurd and endless debate with same number of different opinions as people participating. That´s the reason I always say one of the best ever without quantifying if the very best, or better than this or that


But, how do you define Balls and Heart? I´m not sure if I get the difference

[Just_a_fan]

Heart is driving with passion
Balls is driving with bravery.
That's how I'd view it.

[Wass85]

Which world champion would you say has the best résumé, you have Senna and Prost of course but Alonso, Hamilton and Vettel have had good competition.

[PlatinumZealot]

I think Alonso is a heart driver. Definitely not a head driver. He got tricked on track, and tricked in the paddock a handful of times. You could even say he has tricked himself too!

Button is definitely Head.

Hamiton.... I think he was a heart driver but only until after he teamed with Button. He relaised heart a lone wont cut it. And He transformed himself a Head driver since. If we look back on it, he has played the paddock politics well. Mastered social media, driver sponsorships. He has psychologically defeated his opponents on track (Nico, Vettel, Bottas 2.0. And he has mastered these "thinking man" regulations with how he manages fuel and tyres.

Max.... Is all heart for the time being. Not sure he has done anything drastically ballsy as yet. But I think he has it in him.


A ballsy champion?? Hmm.. I would say Nico Rosberg. It took a lot of Balls to transform himself and do what he did. Sadly his buldging balls shrunk a like raisin in the sun after he won the championship.

[Andres125sx]

Heart is driving with passion
Balls is driving with bravery.
That's how I'd view it.

Ok thanks, but then I´d say Lewis drives with passion as he pushes even when not necessary, while Max drives with bravery, doing things wich many people consider too risky, but that´s not how people is clasifying them, so maybe a bit confusing

[TheGkbrk]

I just watched the video. A list of top drivers always sound interesting and makes me want to comment.
I do think that it is hard, maybe even pointless to compare drivers 30-40+ years apart but in an all-time list you have to make assumptions, I mean that is the point of a top tier list. Any world champion should be up there when looking for the top drivers surely but we are looking for a tighter list. Picking top drivers from each decade should bring us a bit closer to what we are looking for.
50s - Fangio - Moss - Ascari
60s - Clark - G.Hill - Brabham
60s - 70s - Stewart - Fittipaldi
70s - 80s - Lauda - Villeneuve
80s - 90s - Piquet - Prost - Senna - Mansell
90s - Hakkinen - D.Hill
90s - 00s - Schumacher
00s - 10s - Alonso
10s - Hamilton
Top drivers of the sport, in no particular order, can be listed this way I guess.
As a fan myself, started watching this sport 2007, I can say I only witnessed the two drivers on that list, so I can put only those two in an order, the ones I watched on track. For that two, both being top notch and immense talents, I would put Fernando a little above Lewis, just that I believe he proved more as pure driver capability, minimalizing the effect of car performance.
edit: reorganizing the chronology - driver matchup

[PlatinumZealot]

The f1 eras dont overlap well with the decades. Senna for instance he is one the fence between the 80's and the 90's.

Schumacher only covered the first half of 2000's. The second was definitely Alonso. Hakkinen wasn't really a performer at all. Maybe is best to group them by some sort of era or generations.

[ncx]

would be fun to make a list of which driver drives with what body part. like:

Head:
- Prost
- Lauda
- Schumacher
- Alonso

Heart:
- Senna
- Verstappen
- Hamilton

Balls:
- Hunt
- G. Villeneuve
- Mansell



etc etc etc

Apparently, since the 1930s or so, the young test drivers of Alfa Romeo have been taught by their mentors that "you drive the car with your butt". So, you may want to add that body part to your filing system, and it's not even gender-specific

[NathanOlder]

Surely moustache and sideburns have to feature.

Moustache

G.Hill
K.Rosberg
Mansell


Sideburns

Emo
Stewart
Frentzen (I seem to remember him with decent sized sideburns all the time, but looking through google , maybe I'm wrong but he still makes my list)