tim3003 wrote:Thanks for the plaudits!
So how do you define 'best' if it's not the most successful? I didn't say 'quickest'. The phrase GOAT is used these days. (Greatest of all time). Who's the F1 GOAT if not Schumacher or Fangio?
I did expect Alonso's low position to be challenged. However, as was noted re Fangio, one of the skills of an F1 champion is getting into the right car at the right time. Alonso's disasterous gamble with Mclaren surely proved he lacks that skill - why didn't he sign for a year with an option for more? Maybe money played a part? I remember Senna offering to drive for Frank Williams for free to get the 1994 drive..
Best is difficult to define, greatest is near-impossible.
Senna is the fastest I have ever seen myself, but I have this feeling he was just starting to mature into being the best when he was killed. Schumacher was nearly as fast, and must have been one of the best drivers in the history of the sport, but is far more difficult to judge since he never had any team-mates after 1992. But in the 'best' category he must surely be near the top, even allowing for all the testing nobody else in F1 enjoyed.
Prost is the best driver I have seen in the pre-Schumacher era, and I think he is massively underrated. Which must surely be an achievement in itself.

In my book, he remains the best.
I wish I had seen Fangio in action, but he left F1 a few months before I was born. I don't think it is fair to compare his team-hopping to the best car available with the multi-year contracts seen as normal these days, and therefore can't agree that Alonso lacks/lacked that skill. I see no difference in skill between Hamilton getting lucky and Alonso being unlucky. Luck isn't a skill.
Greatness to me involves more than 'simply' being the best at one point in the history of F1. Lauda may not have been as good a driver as Schumacher was, but he is greater in my book. Among my reasons for thinking so is the fact he competed with a world champion-to-be who was faster and became the best, and won. The effort required is something many overlook. Some drivers never get the credit they deserve, and that goes far beyond the drivers who get the chance to win the WDC.
One factor that is required in my estimation for inclusion in the greatness category is sportsmanship. And that is where Schumacher drops out. The most difficult driver for me to judge for 'best' and 'great' is Hamilton. Even before Nico left, I had the feeling the team was geared too much in his favour.
- I thought Senna's offer to drive for nothing came earlier than 1994, am I mistaken?
- I may also be mistaken about Fangio's shared victories (when he took over another driver's car), but I believe they also shared the points in such a case.
Best F1 driver ever? I think your exercise probably got the correct person on top, while my best is slightly too far down. But well done anyway!
PS: "Greatest"? Kimi, who else?

Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.
Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi