planetf1.com

pokerman wrote:Elio de Angelis, he was better than Mansell over the 3 years they were teammates, also I would say he was a decent teammate for Senna. I'm guessing he was edged out of the Lotus team by Senna who thought that Lotus couldn't run 2 competitive cars.

I didn't even consider Montoya because he would refuse to be a #2 driver as opposed to de Angelis who was a consummate gentleman.

POBRatings wrote:OK I've gone for Montoya. My reason being he would not have let a number one destroy his spirit/speed as de Angelis and Frentzen allowed. Also think he was fastest on the list. My one reservation is that strategically Montoya could be self-damaging. He twice sulked and dropped far back into other, slower car's accidents. Still think he'd score more for a team than the others on the list.

Fiki wrote:

pokerman wrote:Elio de Angelis, he was better than Mansell over the 3 years they were teammates, also I would say he was a decent teammate for Senna. I'm guessing he was edged out of the Lotus team by Senna who thought that Lotus couldn't run 2 competitive cars.

I didn't even consider Montoya because he would refuse to be a #2 driver as opposed to de Angelis who was a consummate gentleman.

I don't doubt for a second that Elio was a gentleman, but he didn't hide the fact that he was bitterly disappointed by the team once Senna arrived. And I can't blame him; his 1993 season had been superb and demoting him was quite uncalled for.

POBRatings wrote:OK I've gone for Montoya. My reason being he would not have let a number one destroy his spirit/speed as de Angelis and Frentzen allowed. Also think he was fastest on the list. My one reservation is that strategically Montoya could be self-damaging. He twice sulked and dropped far back into other, slower car's accidents. Still think he'd score more for a team than the others on the list.

pokerman wrote:

Fiki wrote:

pokerman wrote:Elio de Angelis, he was better than Mansell over the 3 years they were teammates, also I would say he was a decent teammate for Senna. I'm guessing he was edged out of the Lotus team by Senna who thought that Lotus couldn't run 2 competitive cars.

I didn't even consider Montoya because he would refuse to be a #2 driver as opposed to de Angelis who was a consummate gentleman.

I don't doubt for a second that Elio was a gentleman, but he didn't hide the fact that he was bitterly disappointed by the team once Senna arrived. And I can't blame him; his 1993 season had been superb and demoting him was quite uncalled for.

Did he cause problems on the track though?

F1 MERCENARY wrote:

POBRatings wrote:OK I've gone for Montoya. My reason being he would not have let a number one destroy his spirit/speed as de Angelis and Frentzen allowed. Also think he was fastest on the list. My one reservation is that strategically Montoya could be self-damaging. He twice sulked and dropped far back into other, slower car's accidents. Still think he'd score more for a team than the others on the list.

First of all, nice to see you back 'round these parts. LOL

As for Montoya, I don't think he's 2nd Driver material but a Lead Driver and one who would NEVER back down from anyone they paired him with and he would be just as, if not faster than anyone, less "MAYBE" Michael. His greatest asset as a driver is thought to also be his greatest weakness and that would be his attitude. He was mentally strong but if he got tiddled, there was a chance he'd let his emotions get the best of him and he could potentially make a mistake.

That however is something that EVERY single great EVER has done so he is no different than any of them with the exception perhaps of the Prost. The Professor was always aware of what was going on and aside from his own team pulling a fast one on him, I don't think any driver didn't try or do something he didn't already see coming and was always ready for it. Outside maybe the one time I don't think we ever saw him unravel. Michael never unraveled either but he did throw caution to the wind and made a couple of moves as best he could, but the moves were not done well enough to hide their intent.

Best #2 driver is not even listed and that would be Rubens. The most consistent guy in a top car over a considerable period of time and rare as it was, when he was in the zone, not even the greatest could touch him. If consistent points is what you are after, I can't think of anyone who could bring them as often as Rubens. Well, perhaps Massa but he's eerily similar to Rubens in most every regard. One of the best #2's but potentially a #1 when he's on it in the right equipment.

LOL as I prepare to click on the submit button other similar examples jump out at me. Button just now.

As for Frentzen, he was as talented as anyone high up on the list of greats but for whatever the reasons, he could not maintain form all the way through
seasons and to me at least, it seemed the Michael Corinna thing seemed to get to him more which is understandable. Regardless of their relationship "supposedly" being over before her and Michael hooked up, it had to weigh on Frentzen's mind. A few years later he was back on it and doing well, but again, as previously stated, he lacked consistency and only mounted a few serious challenges at the front. As it was said in "A Bronx Tale"… Wasted Talent.

j man wrote:I never worked out if Frentzen was any good or not. His form over his career fluctuated more than any other driver I can think of, not so much from race to race but from season to season. He had a nightmarish 1997 season when the title was there for the taking. Curiously he then seemed more than a match for Villeneuve the following year. And then put up a much better title fight in a Jordan the year after???

The man was a total enigma.

Fiki wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Fiki wrote:

pokerman wrote:Elio de Angelis, he was better than Mansell over the 3 years they were teammates, also I would say he was a decent teammate for Senna. I'm guessing he was edged out of the Lotus team by Senna who thought that Lotus couldn't run 2 competitive cars.

I didn't even consider Montoya because he would refuse to be a #2 driver as opposed to de Angelis who was a consummate gentleman.

I don't doubt for a second that Elio was a gentleman, but he didn't hide the fact that he was bitterly disappointed by the team once Senna arrived. And I can't blame him; his 1993 season had been superb and demoting him was quite uncalled for.

Did he cause problems on the track though?

No, he left the team that demoted him.

pokerman wrote:

Fiki wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Fiki wrote:

pokerman wrote:Elio de Angelis, he was better than Mansell over the 3 years they were teammates, also I would say he was a decent teammate for Senna. I'm guessing he was edged out of the Lotus team by Senna who thought that Lotus couldn't run 2 competitive cars.

I didn't even consider Montoya because he would refuse to be a #2 driver as opposed to de Angelis who was a consummate gentleman.

I don't doubt for a second that Elio was a gentleman, but he didn't hide the fact that he was bitterly disappointed by the team once Senna arrived. And I can't blame him; his 1993 season had been superb and demoting him was quite uncalled for.

Did he cause problems on the track though?

No, he left the team that demoted him.

Oh did Elio actually leave of his own accord?

F1 MERCENARY wrote: Best #2 driver is not even listed and that would be Rubens. The most consistent guy in a top car over a considerable period of time and rare as it was, when he was in the zone, not even the greatest could touch him. If consistent points is what you are after, I can't think of anyone who could bring them as often as Rubens. Well, perhaps Massa but he's eerily similar to Rubens in most every regard. One of the best #2's but potentially a #1 when he's on it in the right equipment.

Fiki wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Fiki wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Fiki wrote:I don't doubt for a second that Elio was a gentleman, but he didn't hide the fact that he was bitterly disappointed by the team once Senna arrived. And I can't blame him; his 1993 season had been superb and demoting him was quite uncalled for.

Did he cause problems on the track though?

No, he left the team that demoted him.

Oh did Elio actually leave of his own accord?

Yes he did, although I don't know what came first, his decision to leave Lotus, or Piquet leaving Brabham.
For all I know Senna may well have been right that Lotus didn't have the means to concentrate on two drivers. But the fact is that even concentrating on one only, they were unable to get much more out of the Lotus-Renault combination than de Angelis and Mansell were, bar some fantastic (but otherwise totally useless) pole positions.

pokerman wrote:Thinking about it, it's quite incredible that a driver that had only done one season in F1 in a midfield team could then go to a team with the prestige of Lotus and dictate how the team is run.

pokerman wrote: Thinking about it, it's quite incredible that a driver that had only done one season in F1 in a midfield team could then go to a team with the prestige of Lotus and dictate how the team is run.

Donington93 wrote:I didn't list Rubens, Rosberg Jr., or DC, that was on purpose.

These are drivers that for the most part rarely get talked about.

Donington93 wrote:Montoya would not get close IMO to Schumacher or Senna in the same equipment so he could go into the year thinking however he wanted - he would become de facto #2. I think Montoya would run Damon Hill or JV very hard for that #1 spot.

POBRatings wrote:OK I've gone for Montoya. My reason being he would not have let a number one destroy his spirit/speed as de Angelis and Frentzen allowed. Also think he was fastest on the list. My one reservation is that strategically Montoya could be self-damaging. He twice sulked and dropped far back into other, slower car's accidents. Still think he'd score more for a team than the others on the list.

F1 MERCENARY wrote:

I saw the man drive in the flesh. He could have (similarly to Alonso) matched and even beaten either of them as well as Prost in equal machinery. He was that darned good and he generally gelled well with his teams just like all 3 I mentioned. Montoya in his prime was a guy no F1 driver would elect to have as a teammate because he would NEVER be anyone's doormat.

Donington93 wrote:

pokerman wrote: Thinking about it, it's quite incredible that a driver that had only done one season in F1 in a midfield team could then go to a team with the prestige of Lotus and dictate how the team is run.

Was Toleman really a mid-field team? I think of Lotus as more of a mid-field team in that era. I'd define a mid-field team as a team capable of scoring points in many races with some podiums here and there, but one that would need extraordinary circumstances to score wins. I think Toleman needed extraordinary circumstances to score podiums and was usually not in the points - so by my definition they were more of back marker.

POBRatings wrote:I think Montoya and Ralf Schumacher were both vastly under-rated. It seems many did not like Ralf or JP as people, which downgraded perceptions of their abilities.
In their four seasons as Williams-BMW team-mates, according to my calculations, Ralf was 0.3 faster than rookie JP in 2001, but thereafter the two were so close-matched, within 0.1 of each other until 2004. In those three seasons they raced at about the same gap from the fastest driver (a relation of Ralf's )as Rosberg and Ricciardo did in 2015. This is not to say that Monty and Ralf rate exactly the same as Nico and Dan. It is a measure of their competitiveness within their own era. Drivers across eras cannot be directly compared. There was a piece on my blog in Oct 2011 comparing Montoya to fifties driver Gonzalez, comparing their driver-ratings each season.

F1 MERCENARY wrote:

Donington93 wrote:I didn't list Rubens, Rosberg Jr., or DC, that was on purpose.

These are drivers that for the most part rarely get talked about.

I haven't missed a race in almost 18 years and all three of these drivers got/get plenty of coverage. Rubens was just in Brazil and he was shown on live TV several times over the weekend. They got talked about PLENTY.

Donington93 wrote:Montoya would not get close IMO to Schumacher or Senna in the same equipment so he could go into the year thinking however he wanted - he would become de facto #2. I think Montoya would run Damon Hill or JV very hard for that #1 spot.

I saw the man drive in the flesh. He could have (similarly to Alonso) matched and even beaten either of them as well as Prost in equal machinery. He was that darned good and he generally gelled well with his teams just like all 3 I mentioned. Montoya in his prime was a guy no F1 driver would elect to have as a teammate because he would NEVER be anyone's doormat. Damon hill… Highly underrated. Got too late a start to have as long a career at the top like most others. If JV didn't become full of himself, he could have been one of the greatest ever. Sadly, he gave into the celebrity aspect and went for the money the moment the briefcase was presented to him and was never able to recover. Still today he's full of himself to the point he cannot see it. Sad really as he had astonishing ability and great potential.

Donington93 wrote:I meant the drivers in the poll do not get mentioned a lot. Not the drivers who some have mentioned who were not in the poll.

POB raises some fair points about Toleman and Lotus and I think based on those I've changed my mind.

RaggedMan wrote:Man, you all make it sound like JPM is dead or retired. He almost won the Indy title last season!

Kev627 wrote:If Montoya is considered a number 1 driver by many who / what sort of driver would make his perfect number 2?

OutKast wrote:HHF was more than fast enough, I thought he could have done something special, a la the 1999 season, but as much as I enjoyed him. Something was never right with him and I think he was more than a match for Villeneuve back in '97, but Williams isn't exactly known for cuddling drivers. Maybe, that did effect him mentally, but who knows?

He still was a solid driver for Sauber and Arrows in the later part of his career. Something tells me that '97 was essential the "nail in the coffin" so to speak for Frentzen. There were many of occasions where he would split teams in qualifying, but I'm not as sure now.

I think he had all-time great potential, but it does not workout like that many of times.

Kev627 wrote:If Montoya is considered a number 1 driver by many who / what sort of driver would make his perfect number 2?