Most "deserving" F1 WDC
Discussion
I have limited knowledge of F1 before around 10 years ago but have picked up bits and bobs over the years.
I'm finding this thread quite harrowing as it's making me read into all of these drivers- drivers I have heard of and might have an idea of their period and what sort of car they drove- but knew little about the landscape of the sport in their time and their personal lives. So many of them dead in their 20s or early 30s.
I'm finding this thread quite harrowing as it's making me read into all of these drivers- drivers I have heard of and might have an idea of their period and what sort of car they drove- but knew little about the landscape of the sport in their time and their personal lives. So many of them dead in their 20s or early 30s.
As a child in the 60s and 70s, I devoured books on motor racing and F1. The ever present threat of imminent and violent death was all pervasive - and often the main talking point in a lot of the books - whether they be general overviews like "The Cruel Sport" or driver biographies.
Another book that I read often was this one -
People sometimes criticise the movie "Grand Prix" for being over dramatic and rather bleak - but it actually reflects much of the atmosphere as to what motor sport was like in the mid 1960s.
Another book that I read often was this one -
People sometimes criticise the movie "Grand Prix" for being over dramatic and rather bleak - but it actually reflects much of the atmosphere as to what motor sport was like in the mid 1960s.
Eric Mc said:
As a child in the 60s and 70s, I devoured books on motor racing and F1. The ever present threat of imminent and violent death was all pervasive - and often the main talking point in a lot of the books - whether they be general overviews like "The Cruel Sport" or driver biographies.
Another book that I read often was this one -
People sometimes criticise the movie "Grand Prix" for being over dramatic and rather bleak - but it actually reflects much of the atmosphere as to what motor sport was like in the mid 1960s.
Sadly not just the 1960's, I still watch in horror whenever I see the footage of the terrible accident involving Roger Williamson at Zandvoort in the Dutch GP in 1973. Bad enough that the car catches fire but the fact the race continues while the marshals dither and the poor bloke burns alive just defies belief; the obvious despair of David Purley is still upsetting to see over 40 years later...Another book that I read often was this one -
People sometimes criticise the movie "Grand Prix" for being over dramatic and rather bleak - but it actually reflects much of the atmosphere as to what motor sport was like in the mid 1960s.
Back on topic and I suppose the person I was most happy to see finally win a WDC was probably Nigel Mansell. In some respects I wasn't a great fan of the personality and yes I know the year he won the championship he was in a car that was massively superior to anything else on the grid; however, he'd been one of the top drivers for a number of years and I think it would have been quite sad - and inappropriate - if he'd finished his career without a WDC. I always think he'd have probably won a second title if he'd stayed at Williams for 1993 but obviously politics intervened and he didn't feel like he wanted to stay and partner Alain Prost.
I think the suggestion of Graham Hill winning the championship following the death of his team-mate Jim Clark in 1968 is a pretty good shout for the most deserving WDC of all; I'm too young to have seen Clark race but all his peers seemed to hold him in the highest regard and by all accounts "Great" is an entirely appropriate word where he's concerned. Therefore, for Hill to help pull the team together and go on and win the championship was indeed an excellent achievement; his lad almost emulated the feat for Williams following the death of Senna in 1994 but sadly we all know what happened at Adelaide.....
Perversely almost , as he only won a single Grand Prix in his championship year, Keke Rosberg. Still an under-rated driver in my view, and one possessed of other worldly car control and absolute and self belief. He drove a normally aspirated Williams in a season which saw no fewer than 11 victors in turbo and n/a cars.
Keke also did probably the greatest single lap I have ever seen trackside - pole at Silverstone '85 - 160.9 mph - on a slightly damp track and with a slow puncture , aided by a gazillion bhp from Honda V6T .
Keke also did probably the greatest single lap I have ever seen trackside - pole at Silverstone '85 - 160.9 mph - on a slightly damp track and with a slow puncture , aided by a gazillion bhp from Honda V6T .
JNW1 said:
his lad almost emulated the feat for Williams following the death of Senna in 1994 but sadly we all know what happened at Adelaide.....
Yes, the more deserving driver won the championship. People actually talk about Rosberg getting lucky, they should watch the 94 season again, now that is luck. Hill only beat Schumacher on the road twice in the entire season and even one of those was gifted to him in Spain. Due to all the BS and suspensions, Schumacher only scored points in 10 races. He won 8 and finished second in the other 2, one of which was Spain which would've been another easy win had it not been for the gearbox fault which gifted the first of many lucky points to Hill.
Had Hill won the championship in 94 it would've been a travesty and the most undeserving championship win in the history of the sport.
The luck Hill experienced in 94 is on a completely different level to the luck experienced by Rosberg this season.
Eric Mc said:
And we all know the "luck" that Benetton were able to provide Schumacher that year. Yes sir - it was all pure skill. Nothing else. No siree. Honest guv.
Oh Eric, still harping on with rumours and no evidence. I remember very well what you resorted to last time when I pressed you for some proof:"Lack of evidence is not proof of innocence".
whatxd said:
JNW1 said:
his lad almost emulated the feat for Williams following the death of Senna in 1994 but sadly we all know what happened at Adelaide.....
Yes, the more deserving driver won the championship. People actually talk about Rosberg getting lucky, they should watch the 94 season again, now that is luck. Hill only beat Schumacher on the road twice in the entire season and even one of those was gifted to him in Spain. Due to all the BS and suspensions, Schumacher only scored points in 10 races. He won 8 and finished second in the other 2, one of which was Spain which would've been another easy win had it not been for the gearbox fault which gifted the first of many lucky points to Hill.
Had Hill won the championship in 94 it would've been a travesty and the most undeserving championship win in the history of the sport.
The luck Hill experienced in 94 is on a completely different level to the luck experienced by Rosberg this season.
With tongue ever so slightly in cheek I'd say the only Schumacher title worthy of note was 1995 which he won fair and square despite not having the best the car; the others were either tainted (1994) or achieved by being in the best car with a tame team-mate who wasn't allowed to race him......
JNW1 said:
I agree Schumacher was a better driver than Hill but it doesn't alter the fact he eventually won the 1994 title with a manoeuvre which if repeated today would see him excluded from the championship altogether (as quite rightly happened when he tried to pull a similar stunt in the final race of 1997). I think the other thing you overlook is the legality of the car Schumacher was driving in 1994 - questionable to say the least and how Benetton were allowed to keep those early season victories following the discovery of a traction control facility lurking in a hidden menu I really don't know.
With tongue ever so slightly in cheek I'd say the only Schumacher title worthy of note was 1995 which he won fair and square despite not having the best the car; the others were either tainted (1994) or achieved by being in the best car with a tame team-mate who wasn't allowed to race him......
There's no proof the traction control was ever used. None whatsoever.With tongue ever so slightly in cheek I'd say the only Schumacher title worthy of note was 1995 which he won fair and square despite not having the best the car; the others were either tainted (1994) or achieved by being in the best car with a tame team-mate who wasn't allowed to race him......
And the 2000 Ferrari was, at best, an equal to the McLaren. It was not better which goes some way to explaining why Barrichello found himself in a distant fourth place when the season ended.
whatxd said:
JNW1 said:
I agree Schumacher was a better driver than Hill but it doesn't alter the fact he eventually won the 1994 title with a manoeuvre which if repeated today would see him excluded from the championship altogether (as quite rightly happened when he tried to pull a similar stunt in the final race of 1997). I think the other thing you overlook is the legality of the car Schumacher was driving in 1994 - questionable to say the least and how Benetton were allowed to keep those early season victories following the discovery of a traction control facility lurking in a hidden menu I really don't know.
With tongue ever so slightly in cheek I'd say the only Schumacher title worthy of note was 1995 which he won fair and square despite not having the best the car; the others were either tainted (1994) or achieved by being in the best car with a tame team-mate who wasn't allowed to race him......
There's no proof the traction control was ever used. None whatsoever.With tongue ever so slightly in cheek I'd say the only Schumacher title worthy of note was 1995 which he won fair and square despite not having the best the car; the others were either tainted (1994) or achieved by being in the best car with a tame team-mate who wasn't allowed to race him......
And the 2000 Ferrari was, at best, an equal to the McLaren. It was not better which goes some way to explaining why Barrichello found himself in a distant fourth place when the season ended.
In terms of his titles at Ferrari, perhaps there wasn't much between his car and the McLaren in 2000 although from memory McLaren suffered with reliability problems early in the season. However, the fact remains he was always in a situation where he had undisputed number one driver status and a team-mate who simply wasn't allowed to challenge him; that certainly wasn't the case at McLaren where the drivers were free to race one another until one no longer had a chance of winning the championship. I'm not saying anything other than Schumacher was an outstanding driver (he was IMO) but the set-up in the Ferrari team made it easy for him to amass titles; it would have been much more difficult if he'd had a top class driver in the other Ferrari who was allowed to race freely and for that reason I personally think his string of titles are a bit less impressive in reality than they appear on paper. Of course Schumi deserves credit for helping to turn-round what was an under-performing team when he arrived but he made pretty sure nobody was going to be able to challenge him and once the Ferrari became competitive winning WDC's was relatively easy for a driver of his calibre!
Edited by JNW1 on Friday 2nd December 07:43
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff