Most unworthy f1 champion?

[Halmyre]

Walford said:

Who he?

[Derek Smith]

Smollet said:

However they were about twice as long distance/ time wise so overall endurance probably isn't much difference

It was slightly more dangerous as well I believe. Perhaps they limited the races to ensure there would be enough drivers at the end of the season.

[Harji]

Mr_Thyroid said:

VladD said:

Mr_Thyroid said:

I can't help thinking that back in the 50s when there were less than 10 races they are only really like half championships.

Weren't the races twice as long time wise though?

They probably only went about half the speed though.

That is really an ignorant statement, not nly were the cars far more dangerous, require incredible strength to drive but they were quick. I always saved this information (from this post http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=103...


One thing to note, the F1 data was taken from historic race meetings, so imagine a Fangio/Moss/Clark giving it the full beans, those times would be even quicker.

"Thought id pick a more popular track to give an approximate comparison of supercars vs old race cars. Supercar data from fastest laps (mostly taken from various magazines, EVO etc) Race car data taken from results in the last few years of histroic race meetings.

Around the Silverstone Bridge GP track (the one before the new Arena layout)

F1 cars-
1956 BRM p25 (front engined) 2.11
1960 Lotus 18 (rear Engined) 2.06
1969 Matra MS80 (slicks and wings) 2.00
1979 Tyrell 009 1.41

Supercars-
Lamborghini Murcielago LP 670-4 SuperVeloce 2.08
Nissan GTR 2.10
Audi R8 4.2 2.12

[Corpulent Tosser]

There are no unworthy F1 Champions, each beat whatever competition was against them over a season.

[Agent Orange]

Harji said:

Mr_Thyroid said:

VladD said:

Mr_Thyroid said:

I can't help thinking that back in the 50s when there were less than 10 races they are only really like half championships.

Weren't the races twice as long time wise though?

They probably only went about half the speed though.

That is really an ignorant statement...

They were joking. Add a and a and see how it reads.

[AreOut]

Corpulent Tosser said:

There are no unworthy F1 Champions, each beat whatever competition was against them over a season.

hah, this season proved more than ever that there are times when you only have to beat your team colleague, and in case of msc and vettel sometimes not even them...

[markcoznottz]

AreOut said:

Corpulent Tosser said:

There are no unworthy F1 Champions, each beat whatever competition was against them over a season.

hah, this season proved more than ever that there are times when you only have to beat your team colleague, and in case of msc and vettel sometimes not even them...

The advantage this year is not to the benefit of the sport, and might be 'baked in', with Merc having a jump on other teams that might be unassailable. Earlier comments about piquet sr show how perception is everything, he was very highly rated when he won the british f3 championship, something for example button didn't do. It would be interesting to see drivers in identical cars, but f1 is a business, not a sport, and 'the show' goes on, regardless of who is 'actually' faster.

[Corpulent Tosser]

AreOut said:

Corpulent Tosser said:

There are no unworthy F1 Champions, each beat whatever competition was against them over a season.

hah, this season proved more than ever that there are times when you only have to beat your team colleague, and in case of msc and vettel sometimes not even them...

Some seasons that is the case, but the best teams are unlikely to hire anything but the best available drivers, or at least those perceived as the best.

[AreOut]

That is also true.

[entropy]

Corpulent Tosser said:

There are no unworthy F1 Champions, each beat whatever competition was against them over a season.

Or fortunate to be in the right circumstances.

In an ideal world the competition would be equal but F1 doesn't quite work like that.

There times when the deck is shuffled and suits drivers that aren't greats but more than number 2s and best/complete driver(s) languished with lesser machinery.

And that's the fun with these kinds of debates that people's opinions can be fascinating and infuriating.

[thiscocks]

MitchT said:

1989: Prost When he turned in on Senna who was clearly sufficiently up the side of him.
1994: Schumacher when he turned in on Hill who was sufficiently up the side of him.
The 1990 Senna/Prost incident is a tough one to call. Prost turned in (again) but Senna, arguably, hadn't got enough of his car up the side of Prost's.

lol, you really don't like prost do you!? 89 has been done to death but it is 50/50 at the very worst for prost. To even suggest prost did anything wrong at suzuka 1990 is just massively retarded.

[AreOut]

thiscocks said:

lol, you really don't like prost do you!? 89 has been done to death but it is 50/50 at the very worst for prost.

Eh? Prost crashed into Senna who was along him and he sure saw him there, if you think there is even slight chance that's done without intention you must be very gullible.

[anonymous-user]

Corpulent Tosser said:

There are no unworthy F1 Champions, each beat whatever competition was against them over a season.

What if they beat the competition by deliberately crashing into them? To me the way in which they win makes them worthy or unworthy.

[thiscocks]

AreOut said:

thiscocks said:

lol, you really don't like prost do you!? 89 has been done to death but it is 50/50 at the very worst for prost.

Eh? Prost crashed into Senna who was along him and he sure saw him there, if you think there is even slight chance that's done without intention you must be very gullible.

Well prost had every right to turn in when he did, it was his corner. Even if he turned in at the same time he did laps previously senna would have still hit him, at the very least forced prost over the grass. Prost had every right to turn in when he did. Was just a desperate move from senna which needed cooperation from the overtakee to work out- just this time they didn't jump out of the way like he expected.

[FourWheelDrift]

wibble cb said:

unworthy = least successful, while still winning the title, Rosberg snr?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keke_Rosberg#The_shar...

only 1 win all year, but enough for the title.

I don't think there is ever an unworthy champion but he certainly lucked into it in 1982.

Ferrari should have won in 1982 but Villenevue was killed at Zolder and the runner-up in 1982 Didier Pironi never raced in the last 5 GPs due to near fatal collision with Prost's Renault in heavy rain at Hockenheim.

[AreOut]

thiscocks said:

Well prost had every right to turn in when he did, it was his corner. Even if he turned in at the same time he did laps previously senna would have still hit him, at the very least forced prost over the grass. Prost had every right to turn in when he did. Was just a desperate move from senna which needed cooperation from the overtakee to work out- just this time they didn't jump out of the way like he expected.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWJEdtKsoNQ

Senna put the car parallel to Prost, no way Prost had right to turn into him.

[ayseven]

I am just going to jump in to defend my countryman Villeneuve. Ok he wasn't quite as personable as his dad (whom I met once - British GP 1978), but you don't win the Indy 500 and the F1 WDC by being a crap driver. Sorry. How many of all the names mentioned in here have done that? Back to the question: I rate Senna as vastly overrated. As fast as he obviously was, driving along thinking God will take care of it all, is not very responsible in my opinion.

[Halmyre]

FourWheelDrift said:

wibble cb said:

unworthy = least successful, while still winning the title, Rosberg snr?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keke_Rosberg#The_shar...

only 1 win all year, but enough for the title.

I don't think there is ever an unworthy champion but he certainly lucked into it in 1982.

Ferrari should have won in 1982 but Villenevue was killed at Zolder and the runner-up in 1982 Didier Pironi never raced in the last 5 GPs due to near fatal collision with Prost's Renault in heavy rain at Hockenheim.

Speaking of lucking into it - James Hunt. (ducks for cover)

[angrymoby]

ayseven said:

I am just going to jump in to defend my countryman Villeneuve. Ok he wasn't quite as personable as his dad (whom I met once - British GP 1978), but you don't win the Indy 500 and the F1 WDC by being a crap driver. Sorry. How many of all the names mentioned in here have done that? Back to the question: I rate Senna as vastly overrated. As fast as he obviously was, driving along thinking God will take care of it all, is not very responsible in my opinion.

re: Senna, imho that was a mind game & that's what he would've wanted you to think ...it certainly spooked Prost enough

[Eric Mc]

Mr_Thyroid said:

I can't help thinking that back in the 50s when there were less than 10 races they are only really like half championships.

I just noticed this comment. How crass.

The motor racing world was very different back then. Apart from the cars and circuits being far more dangerous then they are today, the drivers actually took part in as many Grand Prix and F1 races as they do today - it's just that not all the races run to F1 rules were allowed to count for championship points.

And, as well as that, the drivers usually raced in other categories as well. Stirling Moss participated in 60 races in his last full season (1961).