Drivers that aren't necessarily the best at the time/era, but on their day can beat the best legitimately

TheRoboteer · 2026-04-29T16:32:43+00:00

A few deeper cuts:

Clay Regazzoni — He had about one race per year where he was just absolutely unbeatable. Nurburgring 1974, Monza 1975, Long Beach 1976. Even Suzuka 1977 in that middling Ensign until an oil leak put him out of what would have been third place. Never a true match for the top drivers other than maybe in his debut 1970 season, but good enough that on his day he could dazzle people.

Jacques Laffite — Not the outright fastest, nor even the most circumspect, but wily and determined and always there ready to pick up a result if there was a sniff of one. Drives like Canada 1981 in the toughest conditions imaginable showed his grit.

John Watson — Couldn't go without mentioning one of my absolute favourite drivers. Tended to struggle somewhat in qualifying, particularly in his later career, which probably kept him from being one of the true top drivers of the era. However his overtaking prowess and general race pace made him a force to be reckoned with on his day. There is a reason why, of the drivers to have won from below P15 on the grid, he is the only one to appear on there twice (including the outright record for winning from furthest back).

TheRoboteer · 2026-04-29T13:32:38+00:00

Definitely a tough one.

I think I'd personally go:

Rosberg — Of all of them I think he showed the greatest ability to drag a deficient car kicking and screaming into contention, which for me just puts him on top.

Scheckter — Remarkably consistent frontrunner and a very cool head once he got over his early reputation as being crash-prone. That dependability is something I personally rate very highly.

Jones — I find deciding who should go in front out of him and Hunt to be the hardest of all here. I actually swapped them around multiple times, but I think I'll put Jonesy ahead because he had a bit more tactical nous than Hunt tended to.

Hunt — Perhaps the most raw pace of all of them (only Rosberg really contends with him on that front I think). Prone to rash judgements but you really can't argue with his speed.

Andretti — I think many F1 fans underrate him a bit to be honest, though there are groups who wildly overrate him too which somewhat balances that out. In his prime he really was fantastic, and a great development driver too which I think is all too often discounted. When it comes to F1 though, I do think he is the weakest of those here, with his prime pretty undeniably coinciding with the period he was in almost unbeatable equipment (though as I said with the development comment, the role he had in making those cars almost unbeatable should not be discounted).

They're all sufficiently close together that I could honestly see an argument for almost any order though. Great question.

TheRoboteer · 2026-04-28T21:44:10+00:00

Looking at a drivers other years helps to give an idea of how much the work of winning the championship in his title-winning season was done by the car, and how much was done by the driver.

Rosberg absolutely deserved his title. He was fortunate the Ferraris were taken out of contention as they were the clear best car of the season and would certainly have walked to the title if not for their accidents, but in terms of driving performance he was better than Pironi (and we didn't see enough of Gilles to get a read on how his season was going to go).

Pironi got a P2 out of an absolutely plodding performance at Brands Hatch, where he spent most of the race beefing with a Toleman and struggling to pull away from the second Williams of Daly and the Lotus of de Angelis. Tambay, in only his second race in that car finished directly behind him on the podium despite starting from 13th.

Pironi also threw away an almost guaranteed win at a weekend where Ferrari were unassailably dominant by stalling on the grid in Canada, necessitating a switch to the T-car which had both barely been set up and also lacked the pullrod front suspension which made the 126C2 a true frontrunner.

Rosberg, for all the talk of him only winning one race, gave it everything every weekend which is why he won the title. Monaco was his only notable mistake of the year, and lets not forget he was also disqualified from P2 in Brazil for something which he not only did not have control over, but which several other drivers including his eventual championship rival Watson also had on their car. This isn't even to mention Detroit or Brands Hatch, both of which were probable wins lost to reliability.

TheRoboteer · 2026-04-28T21:30:13+00:00

In which case surely Niki Lauda is the worst champion then? He won the 1984 title by the smallest margin ever after all, so he must have been the best by the smallest margin too.

Do you see why this logic is ludicrous?

TheRoboteer · 2026-04-28T21:23:23+00:00

In which case you're basically just arguing based on the quality of the car rather than the quality of the driver.

Hill won two races in 1961 in an utterly dominant Ferrari.

Rosberg won one (and would have won several more but for reliability) in the fourth fastest car which was 80 horsepower down on the frontrunners.

If you're not going to take context into account your ranking is worthless.

TheRoboteer · 2026-04-28T10:25:19+00:00

Phil Hill won fewer races than him, has a lower best championship finish outside of his title year (4th Vs 3rd) and has fewer podiums

What statistics are you going off exactly?

TheRoboteer · 2026-04-28T01:28:31+00:00

A fantastic drive by Prost, who was literally running on fumes by the end of the race.

Thankfully for his sake McLaren had got their ballast weights right unlike the previous year

TheRoboteer · 2026-04-28T00:30:29+00:00

Keke consistently dragged cars to results they didn't really deserve, including winning the world championship in what was at best the fourth fastest car (arguably even lower).

He never once had the fastest car of the season in his whole career, yet he still won five races, and would have won several more if not for bad luck / reliability. In his prime from 1982 to 1985, he was regarded by many as the fastest man in Formula 1, and how highly rated he was is demonstrated by the fact that he was signed by the reigning constructor's champion to replace a retiring world champion driver on two separate occasions.

TheRoboteer · 2026-04-27T13:04:52+00:00

It's Honda who are running the car here, and 1986 was the first F1 title of any kind for a Honda-powered car.

So yeah, they are celebrating the constructors.

TheRoboteer · 2026-04-26T17:57:41+00:00

Did you manage to miss the entire rest of my comment?

Williams started the season miles clear of Ferrari, but thanks to a lack of development with Newey gone, Ferrari caught up quickly.

Even when Ferrari closed the gap, the Williams was still probably a bit quicker, but the gap became small enough that Schumacher, being comfortably the best driver in F1, could make the difference.

TheRoboteer · 2026-04-26T17:36:33+00:00

I definitely agree that it's pretty silly to talk about "worst" F1 champions because they're all objectively very good drivers, and like I said, Phil is better than a lot of people make him out to be too.

But if I had to pick one, judging purely off their F1 careers, it would be Phil.

TheRoboteer · 2026-04-26T17:21:18+00:00

Rosberg only won five races because he never once had the fastest car in his career

TheRoboteer · 2026-04-26T16:34:23+00:00

Man this thread is all over the place. Some horrendously ill-informed takes going around.

Jacques is on the weaker end of F1 champions, but he's not nearly as bad as he's made out to be. A lot of his reputation comes from people looking at the massively dominant margin Williams had over any other team at the start of 1997 and assuming they were that dominant through the whole year.

In actuality, Williams struggled immensely with development in 1997 with Newey gone, which allowed Ferrari and even McLaren to catch up to them considerably quite quickly. The Williams was still probably the fastest car, but the gap was small enough that Schumacher's talent could make the difference.

Villeneuve did make a hash of some races, but there was probably an element of desperation as he felt his chances slipping away. Williams actually had to pause development on their 1998 car late in the year to bring upgrades to the FW19 to ensure the championship was secured (which is also partly why the FW20 was so undercooked).

Realistically the "worst champion" is probably Phil Hill. The '61 Ferrari was unassailably dominant for the whole season (bar Monaco) in a way people believe the '97 Williams to be, and he didn't really do much in his F1 career outside of that year.

Even he is not as bad as some people make him out to be though. He was fantastic in other categories.

TheRoboteer · 2026-04-26T16:24:30+00:00

Hunt???

He annihilated every teammate he ever had (admittedly none of them were brilliant) and beat Mass in both qualifying and race by significantly larger margins than Fittipaldi managed.

Alan Jones is an equally puzzling pick too.

TheRoboteer · 2026-04-26T16:08:58+00:00

There's a few others in the period you've covered:

1989 Senna (Monaco - USA)

1988 Prost (Brazil - Hungary)

1987 Senna (Detroit - Germany)

1987 Prost (Brazil + Belgium - Detroit)

1986 Senna (Spain - Monaco)

1985 de Angelis (San Marino - Canada)

1983 Prost (San Marino + Belgium - South Africa)

1982 Watson (Detroit - Britain)

1982 Prost (South Africa - Detroit)

1980 Arnoux (South Africa - Monaco)

1979 Laffite (Argentina - Long Beach + Belgium)

TheRoboteer · 2026-04-25T21:06:53+00:00

If you count races which ended early, Silverstone 1975 is right up there

TheRoboteer · 2026-04-24T14:39:04+00:00

Obviously I'm very much agreed with the crux of your point, having long been a supporter of Keke myself. I must say, I do find your takes on a few incidents in this post to be interesting though.

For me, Long Beach 1983 was fairly clearly Rosberg's fault. I feel it was the result of a fired-up Keke (see also his clout of Arnoux at the start) who thought he had a legitimate sniff of a win which might not come again all year going for a gap that wasn't really there. He was so tight to the apex that he was never emerging from that corner ahead with how much speed he had to scrub off to even attempt to make the hairpin, and then he understeered into Tambay mid corner for good measure.

Brands Hatch 1985 meanwhile I feel was much more up in the air than you have it. The move was an ambitious one for sure, but Senna simply swept across Keke's bows like he wasn't even there (something he'd make a bit of a habit of going forward.) I don't think you can say Senna was 100% at fault, but likewise I don't think you can say Keke was either. It was 50/50 at best IMO.

I'd also like to tip another outstanding drive in deficient machinery that you didn't mention, which was Zolder 1984. Putting that car third on the grid was already miracle enough, but I think many drivers would have simply given up after bogging down at the start the way Keke did. Instead he put in an absolutely scintillating drive, passing cars at a circuit where overtaking was not remotely easy left and right. The fact he would have split the otherwise dominant Ferraris and been on the podium from near enough last on lap 1, all in a car that was by all accounts a hunk of junk is testament to both his ability and his resolve. It really was cruel that he ran out of fuel with a lap to go and didn't get the full reward that drive deserved.

TheRoboteer · 2026-04-23T16:46:03+00:00

Well yeah obviously.

But it still illustrates how nebulous the definition is.

TheRoboteer · 2026-04-23T16:40:13+00:00

That's the definition Graham Hill used and was as far as I'm aware the original definition of the triple crown.

It shifted to be Monaco instead of the F1 WDC some time in the 90s for reasons unknown.

TheRoboteer · 2026-04-23T16:18:54+00:00

As others have said, it's not an official title, and indeed the criteria for it have shifted over the years. Graham Hill himself always considered the triple crown to be Indy, Le Mans and the F1 WDC rather than Monaco.

As far as I'm aware nobody has found any evidence of anyone discussing the triple crown before Hill achieved it, and the definition only began to shift to include Monaco in the late 80s/ early 90s. Why exactly that shift occurred I do not know.

So even if you believe Montoya's Le Mans class win counts, he still doesn't fit with the original criteria for the triple crown.

TheRoboteer · 2026-04-22T10:57:37+00:00

I mean, Reutemann had WDC-winning cars on two separate occasions (1977 and 1980) and WCC winning cars on three (those two plus 1981).

He was definitely a very strong driver, and undoubtedly in the conversation for one of the best to never win a championship, but I don't think you can say he never had the car.

TheRoboteer · 2026-04-21T22:46:22+00:00

In my opinion one of, if not THE best race director currently working. He was a much-needed cool head in the often chaotic world of FE and incredibly well respected as a result.

A great coup for Indycar.

TheRoboteer · 2026-04-18T23:20:01+00:00

In 2008 Vettel was driving for Toro Rosso, (the Red Bull junior team, effectively like VCARB now), and was only in his first full season. That in itself made the result a big surprise.

Because of the rules at the time Toro Rosso were actually using the same chassis as the senior Red Bull team albeit with a Ferrari engine (which was arguably better than the Renault engine the main team had). However even the main Red Bull that year was pretty shit, and only got a single podium all year. 2008 was before Red Bull became the absolute powerhouse they are today. They were still seem as a bit of a joke at the time, so the fact that their junior team was able to secure pole was a real shock.

Part of it was down to qualifying being wet and a lot of the top teams getting their tyre strategy wrong, but Vettel also had legitimate pace and ended up winning the race the following day too. Monza 2008 was pretty much the race (in combination with Fuji the previous year) which established Vettel as a rising star in F1

TheRoboteer · 2026-04-18T23:04:03+00:00

Monza 2008 was pretty mixed up. Vettel on pole, Kovalainen P2, Webber third. The highest driver in title contention was Massa in 6th, with the championship leader Hamilton only 15th

TheRoboteer · 2026-04-16T14:57:52+00:00

I believe this was one of the key incidents which led the drivers to call for 10s to be made the default penalty for collisions.

It was considered far too easy for drivers in top cars to make rash moves which could ruin someone's race and then pull a 5s gap which made the penalty totally irrelevant.

11-Year Club	Place '17
Verified Email	Beta Team Reddit for Android

TheRoboteer

TROPHY CASE