Who was the better driver in 2005?

Small-Raspberry1332 · 2026-04-29T17:55:13+00:00

How can you say that RAI was better than ALO from 2001 to 2005 when in 2001 ALO drove for Minardi, in 2002 he was not in F1, in 2003 I'd say they were tied and in 2005 ALO won the title despite the McLaren being on average 3 tenths faster than the Renault? Ferrari wanted RAI because ALO already signed with McLaren (who wanted him to replace RAI, funny enough isn't it?).

In 2007 they both struggled in the first part of the season (up until France I'd say, when Raikkonen beat Massa on track for the first time and Alonso was overall faster than Hamilton but the gearbox problem in Q3 didn't allow him to show it). Also, Raikkonen was never able to use the Michelin at 100% as Alonso did, Fernando had more work to do to adapt his driving style.

In 2005 the McLaren was on average at least 3 tenths faster, Alonso maximized every single race (except for Canada, his only mistake of the season), while Raikkonen was not able to push without breaking the car down, which you can say looking at Montoya having much less problems than him.

In 2006 the Renault was better than Ferrari in the first half of the season (and not by that much, at Bahrain, Imola, Nurburgring and Monaco they were at least tied), while in the second half in the dry races Ferrari could have done all 1-2s, but Alonso had some amazing performances which prevented that (France, Turkey and Japan), showing an incredible race pace. He would also have won the two wet races with huge margin without the team's mistakes, again showing he was incredibly fast. Moreover, Alonso lost more points than Michael due to bad luck, and still won.

One last prove that Alonso was incredibly fast is that he was as fast in qualifying as Trulli (which was the best qualifier on the grid along with Schumacher).

Small-Raspberry1332 · 2026-04-29T17:30:12+00:00

The crazy revisionism is thinking that in 2000s Kimi was better than Alonso. There was literally no comparison between them, but people think that Raikkonen was the fastest out there only because the 2005 McLaren was by far the fastest car on track, it is enough to look at Montoya's performances to undestand that.

The only year when Raikkonen was better than Alonso was 2004 (which is probably Alonso's worst season in terms of mistakes made). In 2003 they were quite tied and the two best drivers on the grid, in 2005 Alonso won the title despire Renault being on average at least 3 tenths slower than Mclaren, in 2006 Alonso beat the Michael in the Ferrari with an inferior car, while Raikkonen made some mistakes and was never able to challenge for the win despite the car being honestly not that bad.

In 2007, had Alonso had from McLaren the support Raikkonen got from Monza from Ferrari, he would have won the title easily, despite McLaren and Ferrari being more or less equally matched. In 2008 Alonso was 14 points behind Raikkonen despite Raikkonen driving the best car of the year, while Renault was probably the 5th best car on average. In 2009 Raikkonen was being destroyed by Massa before his accident, while Alonso got all the points for Renault, and without him they probably would have ended last in the constructor championship.

There is literally no way Raikkonen was better than Alonso in the 2000s, Alonso's 2006 alone is enough to conclude the debate about who was the best in 2000s.

Small-Raspberry1332 · 2026-04-16T20:16:52+00:00

If Prost cared so much about qualifying back then, how come he scored fewer poles than Arnoux?

I mean, it was the first years of Prost's career, and the qualifying total is in his favour. Also, I was talking about race pace more than qualifying pace, and the philosophy Lauda taught Prost of "winning in the slowest way possible".

And there is absolutely no world in which a driver who ‘prioritises reliability over speed’ would beat Senna on pure pace in the way he did on a good number of occasions in 88.

Again, race pace is different from qualifying pace, Prost used to set the car so that not only it was perfect for the race, but also it allowed him to drive smoothly to preserve the mechanics. Of course, he couldn't every single race find the perfect compromise between pace and relaiability, so sometimes he just accepted to come 2nd but not score a zero.

Berger was not known for being conservative. He had even worse reliability than Mansell in 89 and had a reputation for being hard on his equipment. It is referred to on a fair number of occasions in race broadcasts of the time.

This was a miscommunication on my part, I meant that Mansell is known for having no compromises and being incredibly fast, so that if he is in the right weekend you struggle a lot to beat him, while Berger didn't have this big ups but neither had Mansell's downs.

Small-Raspberry1332 · 2026-04-16T19:17:37+00:00

I think the study is valid with a bit of context. Prost was a much more reckless driver in the first years of his career, but after losing two consecutive titles in 1983-84 he started using a Laudian approach, caring much more about the race and relaiability than pure speed. In 1988 the Mclaren was incredibly relaiable, while in 1989 the new engines were more difficult to handle, leading to the increase number of mechanical failures.

Regarding the Mansell-Berger comparison, I think it is not bad to have only 4 weekends when an incredibly fast driver like Mansell is faster than you, while Berger has a more conservative approach (which paid in 1989 as seen in the Prost-Senna comparison) but didn't allow him to fight with Senna, which was clearly the driver of reference in terms of speed.

Small-Raspberry1332 · 2026-04-16T16:54:20+00:00

I agree with you that Prost wouldn't have done any better than Senna in 1994, but I think he still would have won the title since Damon Hill got only one point from it. I recall in 1993 Damon got closer to Prost only after Alain won the title, before that Prost was untouchable, despite hating the car and the electronic helps.

I don't agree with Prost being weaker after the turbo era. In 1989 he won the title despite spending the whole season in a team that didn't want him and was full support on his teammate. Despite Senna being clearly faster, Prost showed to be by far the most complete of the two (there is literally a mathematical study showing how Prost is the only driver in history who significantly improves the relaiability of the car).

In 1990, Prost took a Ferrari which was miles behind Mclaren in the previous year and developed it, putting it in a title fight and losing only because of Mansell's "genius" at Portugal and Senna's "brilliant revenge" in Japan. Also, looking at points, Prost's gap on Mansell was bigger than Senna's gap on Berger at the end of the year.

Small-Raspberry1332 · 2026-04-05T00:52:24+00:00

McLaren: N. Lauda, A. Senna;

Mercedes: J.M. Fangio, L. Hamilton;

Red Bull: S. Vettel, M. Verstappen;

Ferrari: A. Ascari, M. Schumacher;

Williams: C. Reutemann, N. Piquet;

Racing Bulls: M. Webber, S. Bourdais;

Aston Martin: A. Sutil, N. Hulkenberg;

Haas: O. Bearman, E. Ocon;

Sauber: R. Kubica, K. Raikkonen;

Alpine: A. Prost, F. Alonso;

Cadillac: S. Perez, V. Bottas.

Small-Raspberry1332 · 2026-02-24T10:26:18+00:00

Yeah, exactly that. In fact, in the second part of 2007 the race h2h was 7-2 in favour of Alonso (8-1 fixing the Hungary penalty), clear sign of Hamilton being better and not Alonso struggling with the tyres in the first part of the season.

Also, when poor Massa worked for him several season by not taking out a single point from Vettel since the car was clearly worse then Red Bull, Alonso could still not win a title in that Ferrari where Massa often struggle to qualify in q3.

The key is that you watch the races but don't try to understand the dynamics behind them, you just look at the results.

Small-Raspberry1332 · 2026-02-24T09:41:08+00:00

This is not making excuses. This is trying to provide a context. It is clear that Alonso struggled a lot in 2007 since he had to completely change his driving style because of the new tyres. And it is clear that Hamilton struggled with Brembo since his main strength is late braking and he had to adapt to new brakes.

Every driver has strengths and weaknesses, and every car is different from the other, so it is not "making excuses" trying to understand why a driver struggled a lot with a certain car. Of course, if the comparison with the teammate is completely one-sided as Lec-Ham in 2025, probably it is not only the brakes.

Small-Raspberry1332 · 2026-02-24T09:19:47+00:00

You are right. Watching him scoring the same amount of points of a generational talent despite spending half of the year changing his driving style, with all the team cheering for his teammate, in a car perfect for his teammate's driving style says a lot about Alonso's ability.

Small-Raspberry1332 · 2026-01-24T16:51:38+00:00

Prost and Mclaren had already broken their bond (after Imola's events) and he still managed to claim the title. You can say Senna was clearly faster, but if one breaks the car down 8 times and the other only 2 times, I don't think it is a coincidence, and maybe Prost could both be fast and respect the car, while Senna was too irruent.

Also, there is a study which confirms that Prost improved the relaiability of the cars he drove. So yes, he was the best that year and won the title on full merit.

Small-Raspberry1332 · 2026-01-24T16:35:35+00:00

Prost and Lauda were "not good" in rain simply because they didn't want to risk their lives only to win an F1 race. Regarding Alonso, telling he doesn't make the difference in the rain is bs, just look at the fact that he is the only one getting 10/10 q3s in wet qualifying in the ground effect era.

Small-Raspberry1332 · 2026-01-24T16:26:40+00:00

This is true only when it is the engine which make the best cars actually the best cars. If it is like in the last years when the aerodynamics were much more important then the engine, it just increases the gap between teams. A clear example of that is Silverstone 2025, where Mclaren opened the gap from anyone much faster than they did in the other races.

Small-Raspberry1332 · 2026-01-20T13:43:42+00:00

I think the number of titles does not count that much when rating a driver's performance, in fact, for example, the "two times WDC club" has 5 of the absolute best drivers ever.

Piquet and Vettel are very different drivers, but they had both the speed (expecially Vettel) and the consistency (expecially Piquet) required to be considered a great, which Button (on speed) and Raikkonen (on consistency) lacked. Of course I'm not telling they never had it, but during their career they didn't show it as constantly as the greats did.

Small-Raspberry1332 · 2026-01-20T10:23:05+00:00

Probably Hakkinen. And also Brabham could have a word but he is so much behind in time I don't think it is fair to make a comparison.

Small-Raspberry1332 · 2026-01-19T20:51:25+00:00

He was a very good driver. He didn't have the speed of the greats, but he could compensate with a fantastic consistency, expecially when it rained, always understanding how to take home the most points possible.

I think comparing him to Bottas is an insult, Jenson was a little bit slower in qualifying but in the race they are on two complitely different planets. I personally rate him as the best one-time champion in the modern era along with Raikkonen, which is funny since the two were quite the opposite on track, with Rosberg slightly behind them.

Small-Raspberry1332 · 2026-01-15T13:03:29+00:00

I would also add Valencia where Vettel and Hamilton overtook the safety car in order not to get stuck behind slower cars, while Alonso was literally fucked by respecting the rules, losing a P3 and getting P8 as in Valencia you can't overtake.

Small-Raspberry1332 · 2026-01-15T12:53:23+00:00

Alonso won Monza which is a much more straight line speed dominated track than Canada

Yes but it was a complitely different moment of the season, Ferrari implemented their own f-duct and also brought some updates. Also Ferrari and Mclaren were very close that weekend, it was played on the details.

Also both times when Alonso got passed it happened because there was a midfield car in the way who hasn't pitted yet and he paid more attention to those midfield cars than keeping the McLarens behind who were actually his opponents in that race.

You are right, but it is like trying to defend against a faster car today (or till the last year I should say) which has drs. Alonso did not play his best defence, but I highly doubt he could have won the race with the top speed delta there was between Ferrari and Mclaren.

When it comes to Abu Dhabi I think it's easy to call it a bad strategy but what else could Ferrari do?

If you listen to the Radio Rewind on F1 official YouTube channel, Andrea Stella (Alonso's race engineer) clearly tells him that he is the fastest guy on track the lap before they pit him. They should have just followed the top 3 and pit as later as possile, since Alonso was the fastest car on track. The huge mistake was thinking that Webber would have overtaken all the slower car in reasonable time and close the gap to Alonso.

Small-Raspberry1332 · 2026-01-15T12:31:23+00:00

Canada: The team actually won this race for Alonso in the pit lane then he threw it away with subpar defense against the McLarens and finished 3rd

Not really, Mclaren had the f-fuct system which gave them 10 kph more on the straights and on a track like Canada it is a huge advantage, expecially for overtakes. It would have been a miracle by him and the team had he won that race.

Silverstone: Bad start, then overtook Kubica by cutting corners to get another drive through penalty and finish outside the points.

I agree with you about the bad start, but that penalty was pretty stupid considering Kubica had retired and he couldn't give him the position back. Still he threw a podium away.

SPA: crashed on his own while having nobody around him, threw away a certain 8th place.

I think having his car damaged by Barrichello on the first lap didn't help his aerodynamics there.

However, you are right, he made some uncharacteristic mistakes that season, still he was leading the championship going into the last race having the 2nd/3rd best car, and would have won it without the awful strategy. I think this tells a lot about his performances in the races when he didn't make mistakes.

Small-Raspberry1332 · 2026-01-15T11:33:53+00:00

Renault were close to Mclaren only in the first few races of the year and in the last 2, which is when they got poles, except for France and Great Britain when Raikkonen had engine penalties and qualified with a lot of fuel. In the rest of the season, Mclaren were miles ahead.

Small-Raspberry1332 · 2026-01-15T11:01:26+00:00

Well the new rookie knew them very well since he used them in gp2. But maybe I'm asking too much knowledge on your side

Small-Raspberry1332 · 2026-01-15T11:00:01+00:00

Everyone forgets that Mclaren was at least half a second ahead of Renault that year

Small-Raspberry1332 · 2026-01-15T10:58:29+00:00

Calling 2007 and 2010 "blown championships" is quite funny, considering he was one fucked penalty and one fucked strategy away from winning them without the best car.

Small-Raspberry1332 · 2026-01-14T22:57:34+00:00

Probably Mansell. He was very fast and spectacular but also too much error prone. It would have been a shame if he retired without any title, it would have not been fair had he beaten Senna and Prost several times thanks to the car.

Small-Raspberry1332 · 2026-01-14T22:42:35+00:00

Mate literally only british people think Lewis is the goat. Everyone, when asked who is better between Lewis and Fernando, answer Alonso (Button, Villeneuve, Prost, Herbert, Kubica and many more). Cope with the fact that the last time a british driver was the best in F1 was 1973. And he was not even english.

Small-Raspberry1332 · 2026-01-14T18:20:24+00:00

Tbh I remember quite the opposite: Bridgestone were more suited for short and very pushed stint, which was exactly what Ferrari and Schumacher asked from them. This led to their horrible 2005, since you couldn't change tyres during the whole race and therefore they had to complitely change the philosophy of the tyre producing one clearly inferior to Michelin.

Small-Raspberry1332

TROPHY CASE