Added: 3 years ago
From: lazerpod66
Views: 13,371
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:

All Comments (205)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • Stefan Johanson didn't really have much of a chance to show his stuff in F1 mostly because many of the teams he raced for (Toleman/Shadow/Spirit/Onyx/Li­gier/Footwork) were either underfunded (Tolman/Onyx) on their last legs (Shadow/Spirit) or in great internal disarray due to internal team management problems (Ligier).

    When he did get to drive for top teams (Ferrari/McLearn) their cars were dogs that had lousy reliability (Ferrari) or were simply uncompetitive place holder until the next year.

  • @Hammerhead547 I think that troughout 1985 to 1987, he had 3 years to show his talent and not much yealded out of that...85, he had a top car, 86, I agre that the Ferrari was a dog, and 1987, the McLaren was a good second best,but in his case, I think that above all, he was a good number 2 driver.

  • johnny dumfries, eddie irvine and felippe massa should be added to the list, they have proven to be useless drivers

  • @codydontknow I 100% agree, specially in the case of both big mouth Irvine and mechanical midget Massa...lol.

  • Fantastic. Congrats for the video. Barrichello is the #1 IMO.

  • what about mark webber, he never found a good enough car which matched hos ability but when he did he was put in with vettel who got the full support of the team from the start

  • Well, it was the alltime... I just threw in 90' and 00's names..

  • Eddie Irvine, Juan Montoya, Giancarlo Fisichella, Kimi, (retired too young, even though he is back now), Norberto Fontana (absolutely destroyed Ralf, Jarno and Wurz in German F3 in 95, but who knows what happened to him once in F1), Esteban Tuero, Screwed up for being at a "pay to drive" team like Minardi, J J Letho (very fast, but got screwed for being besides Schummi in 94) and Jan Magnussen (he beat Senna's record of victories in british F3, but who know's what happened to him once in F1)

  • im soory u had some good points but rubens, Alesi (who was aweosme at quilfying) and villneuve (a world champion) were not wastes!!! This is my opinion though...

  • Song title: September- Cry for you

  • Boutsen was brilliant - Hungaroring or not, holding back Senna for an entire race to win is a damn near superhuman feat. Capelli was a great "big fish, small pond", family atmosphere driver, he never fit in at Ferrari - not many back then did. You can thank Ayrton Senna for Derek Warwick's unjustly average career - not my words, but those of both Derek and then the late, great man himself. Alesi had the choice between Ferrari and Williams for '91. He got it wrong. BADLY wrong.

  • @azapro911 About the Warwick story, yes,Senna vetoed him indeed, but if Warwick had that much talent, he would have soldiered on and drive for another top team veto or not. He had his chance at Renault in 84, when they were still amongst the top 3, but he didn't deliver...

  • @lazerpod66 Renault lost interest in F1 after golden boy Prost lost interest in them. Warwick drove brilliantly for average Arrows, yet still nobody wanted to know. I'll concede that Derek didn't have the flash and charisma of the big names, but the fact is he'd probably have been vetoed elsewhere too - Prost, Mansell and Piquet were just as zealously protective of their "me, me, me!" status. Prost only allowed Senna at McLaren in '88 because he thought he'd beat Ayrton handily. Not the case...

  • @lazerpod66 Fact is, Warwick did deliver in a car that was much further away from Renault's '83 peak than many thought. They lost interest after golden boy Prost left. And where would he have gone in later years? Williams? Oh, no, Mansell's paranoid about anyone else stealing his thunder. Ferrari? Nope, Prost's got his protective bubble there. McLaren? Uh-uh, same situation with Senna as a couple of years earlier. Prost allowed Senna at first and Mansell because he thought they'd be his bitches.

  • @azapro911 Senna vetoed Warwick by fear that the team couldn't handle 2 competitive drivers, and prepare 2 cars equally. Warwick was a good hard racer, agree, but it stops there. Any top driver has to be selfish to make it, even Schumacher, but that is a negative extreme of that concept.

  • @lazerpod66 Greatness is ruthless. I'm certainly not trying to say that Ayrton destroyed Derek's career or anything. Derek had a respectable mid-grid F1 career for many years. What I really can't believe is that Lotus cowered before Ayrton like that - we must remember that although Ayrton was the coming man at the time, he wasn't yet THE man. Lotus should have shown some balls and made a decision of their own. At the time there really was nowhere else for Ayrton to go, until 1988 anyway.

  • @azapro911 In 1982, Ron Dennis saw the potential in Senna, offered to fully fund his f3 season in exchange, he would have exclusive rights to his services when he entered F1, so in a way, when Senna was in F1, he pretty had the upper hand to which team he wanted to go. Lotus, at the time, was a top team backed with Gérard Ducacouge cars and it was a good decision from Senna to race there, and he switched to McLaren a precisely the right time, at the beginning of the Honda/McLaren era.

  • @lazerpod66 100% correct - but what I'm saying is that in January 1986, Senna did not yet have the right - with Mansell and Piquet at Williams, Prost not having allowed him into McLaren yet (because Ayrton did go through a similar thing to Derek before joining McLaren in '88) and no world titles on the board - to march up to Lotus brass and say "don't you DARE hire him!" And it's not like I blame Ayrton for that. I don't. I blame Lotus for letting him make their decisions on who drove for them.

  • @azapro911 I agree with you, but I would add that team managers were after their checkbooks to sign Senna, and it got better after 85. At Williams, Honda were the chiefs, and we all know how that paned out.....Good comments dude, interesting to read you!

  • @lazerpod66 Interesting to read you too. Nice to see someone else has a more balanced view of these things. Ayrton certainly was a shrewd head as well as a brilliant driver. I just find it a bit of a shame that he didn't want to test himself against Derek. I often thought as a kid that if any top driver would relish that, rather than get overprotective about his status, it was Ayrton. Prost was the same. He thought that ultimately, Ayrton would be an understudy. He didn't like what followed.

  • @azapro911 If we look back in retrospect, in 84-85, Warwick was paired with Tambay, and to my knowledge they weren't outracing each other, pretty evenly matched. So, my opinion here was that Senna knew Warwick's value, and considered him as an average driver and it wasn't worth the hassle. Lotus surely wanted Warwick as a Britt for commercial reasons(JPS) That reasonning carried out for 1986 with another Britt, Johnny Dumfries, but he was a dud.

  • @lazerpod66 Tambay was very good, that Renault was nowhere near as good as in previous years and if anything, Senna was paying Warwick an inadvertent, warped compliment - he was concerned enough about Warwick's abilities to block him as a team mate. If he had considered Derek an average driver, he'd have let him join the team, instead of Johnny 'my nobility bought my way here' Dumfries and then subsquently Satoru 'I'm here because Honda insist on it' Nakajima.

  • @azapro911 I would rate Tambay as follow: If the car was perfect, the track and the weather ideal, and with the full backing of the team, Tambay was unbeatable. He was a gentleman, a made driver. But after 85, at Lotus, the 2nd car was for the slave driver. Considering Senna's towering talent, any driver who dared race along side him, he would have beaten him to a pulp.

  • The video is crap - music should be the length of the video, and the graphics are unreadable most of the time.

    Frentzen could have been the 1998 champion, but didn't piece it together at the end.

    And where the hell is Coulthard, the biggest underachiever in history?

    .

  • @zxcv1234vcxz The only crap here is you, Frentzen, of all unconsistent drivers, almost made in in 1999, not 1998 dumbass.

  • i'd throw in Juan Pablo Montoya and Kimi Raikkonnen too. Montoya was exciting in the williams during a time when schumacher and ferrari were miles ahead and his move to mclaren would have gone well if he hadn't piled on five stone. kimi was amazing and won the world title in extraordinary ways. he looked like he could go on to do many titles and fight it out with hamilton/alonso etc for the rest of the decade. the pair of them are now rent a quotes racing circles in backwater towns. real loss

  • @mercsmania I have to agree with you pal, good comment. Check out and take the time for my other vids, both drivers are in there...:)

  • how could De Crasheris be #1? he was a really good driver, dont get me wrong, but his career wasnt really wasted, but he just had bad luck with the teams.I think his team order went Alfa, Mclaren (before dominance), Alfa again, Ligier, Minardi, Brabham (after Piquet), Rial, Scuderia Italia, Jordan, 90s Tyrrell, Sauber, and 1994 Jordan. He had no chance with those cars.

  • @bullet50000 Every driver is a good one, but in DeCesaris, you clearly lacked a brain. I saw a flash of so-to-speak half brilliance, and that was at SPA 1991 in the Jordan, when he was actually leading the race in a car perfectly suited for this awesome racetrack.

    But his engine blew up, maybe a missed shift?

  • @lazerpod66

    But that is kind of my point, he just chose the wrong teams, and I personally dont call that wasting a career. If you mean it like it is sad that the career didnt come to fruition, I agree, but if you are calling the driver himself stupid, I would have to agree with DeCesaris. (also, If you drive in F1 for 11 years, you have had quite a good run, even if you chose teams like Rubens Barichello)

  • @bullet50000 What I point out here is the fact that with all that racing, he didn't yield out any race win. Andrea was no bag of talent, and it was mainly Marlboro dollars that kept him that long in F1.

    But his career wasn't mistimed and filled with wrong teams. 1981, in John Barnard's MP4...great car. 82, works Alfa, another good car, same in 83, but for the rest of his career, I agree except for 1991, the Jordan was an excellent car.

  • @lazerpod66 I do agree with your comment almost completely, albeit I would take out the things about the Alfas being good F1 cars. Sure, they were fast, but they were built like, well, Alfas

  • @bullet50000 Alfas were alfas, granted, but Andrea was there during their best period, under the Gérard Ducarouge reing. They were not front runners, but were right after the big 3 nonetheless.

  • @lazerpod66

    That is the thing. They were fast as hell, even faster than the Brabham BMWs, but the engines were built like, as I said, alfas, so that is why DeCesaris had almost no success there. They were almost a big frontrunner, but then why did they sell out to Euroracing in 83? they really didnt mesh well in the community

  • @lazerpod66

    I mistyped, I mean "disagree" where I said "agree"

  • I reckon if it wasn't for all the team orders and favouritism for Michael Schumacher, Barrichello could've easily become champion.

  • Great pictures of the cars. Thanks.

  • @freewill51 My pleasure dude.

  • @lazerpod66 I think Raikkonen should be in this list 18 gp wins and only 1 championship.

  • My no.1 in this ranking would be Nick Heidfeld. The (no irony!) most seccessful driver who never won a grand prix.

  • Fisichella fucked up his own career, ditching his team right after he achieved a pole position with his car....The idiot couldn't tell how badly Luca Badoer was struggling in the other Ferrari...Kimi made driving that Ferrari look easy enough to make Fisichella make a move that spelt the death of his F1 career.

  • @nitroboost8765 Very accurate comment nitroboost.

  • These weren't unfulfilled most of them. Some should have been champion but still a a great career. Gugelmin should have been added to the race. Ayrton Senna rated him highly and a good friend and along with Capelli pushed Leyton House up the field. Heidfeld should have been better. Irvine, Ireland, Collins, Brooks, Cheever, Reutemann, Mass, Patrese. The list goes on. Stats would be the only thing to bring a decider on the wasted front

  • I agree with most of it. Watson should not be in there, rather DC or Reutemann or Regazzoni, all 3 who should have won the championship. Alesi and Rubens are in it for sure, but I think lower down.

    Still great video keep them coming!!!!!!

  • @MrKeyboard69 Thanks so much! DC achieved alot to my taste, Regga was too much of a nice guy like Jochen Mass. Reutemann....very difficult to pinpoint, bi-polar or split personnality? Who really knows, but a great driver nonetheless...Watson was great potential, but too nice.....

  • @lazerpod66 Mmm... good points.

    I agree with hypervyper for Alex Wurz, did'nt do as good as he could have.

    Maybe also Jos Verstappen, JJ Lehto or Johnny Herbert (although I very much like him)!!!!!

    Also JP Montoya or R.Schumacher?????

    Maybe Martin Brundle and Olivier Panis could/should be in there, and also maybe Eddie Irvine!

  • @MrKeyboard69 also pedro rodriquez!!!!

  • Nick Heidfeld?

  • I would say Alex Wurz had a wasted career. He was consistent and quick in the Benetton in the late 90s and was touted for great things and then he just faded into F1 oblivion and became a test driver. Did anyone even notice when he returned in 07?

  • @hypervyper76 Wurz...interesting, what justifies the choice of this tall Austrian fellow?

  • @lazerpod66 I don't think he should be on the list per se, but if you look at what he accomplished in his first 12 races (Canada 97 - Britain 98) and then look at the rest of his F1 career, you can't help but wonder what went wrong. I guess he just got Wurz over time, pardon the terrible joke. His drive in the 2007 Canadian GP was superb though, a well deserved podium bringing his Williams from 19th to 3rd. Unfortunately for him that race had many highlights, so his 3rd place is overlooked.

  • uhhhh...Eddie Cheever?

  • @mat2000100 He had the cance to drive in a top team along side the best and simply blew it....

  • @lazerpod66 and Mark Donohue and will mairesse?

  • Stefan Johansson: When he drove for Ferrari, the car was never a threat for wins and not as reliable, but not the worst in the world. When he drove McLaren, he never got a second chance (year) to race for them. Maybe if he were in a Williams at that time, could he have won a few races. We'll never know.

  • @punkr Johansson....interesting. I think that he suffered from the Mr nice guy syndrome! He was an intelligent driver, but was never in a top car, except in 1985. But his team choices after 85 were very mistimed I must say, where to go in an Onyx???

  • Nos.10,9,6,5,3 & 2 wernt exeractly really wasted careers

  • "He's been in the f1 circus too long, retirement is the answer."

    That's just you saying: "Rubens was never world champion, he should retire so drivers I like better get a chance of winning."

    And where is Martin Brundle? Anthony Davidson? You are just a De Cesaris fan. (Though I must admit, Alesi was a great driver, and fully deserved more than one win.)

  • @GeriatricFan1963 Barrichello has been too long around. A De Cesaris fan...lol, thanks for the laugh, whatch your words.

  • @lazerpod66 Excuse me but look who's talking: Learn to spell please!

    You were merely expressing your opinion, and I was expressing mine. Though I must admit I am a die-hard Barrichello fan because he is very funny and also very passionate when the mood takes him, not like the other robot driving machines, like Hamilton.

    Sorry, clearly I have no alternative than to "Submit" to your opinion, perish the thought that I might disagree with your list...

  • @GeriatricFan1963 Anybody can make a typing mistake, lay off and stick to the subject.

    I agree that Barrichello is a likeable chap,but in my humble opinion, he's a good number 2, just like Patrese, Mass and Watson.

    Although, I appreciate your opinion, keep it straight.

  • My favorite driver is #2 and appropriately in this list!

    Man, one only wonders what would happened had he listened to Uncle Ken and given Frank Williams a phone call and said "yes" to the #6 FW14 Williams/Renault RS3 V10 that Frank was offering him.

    He would have been Mansell's teammate!!

    But Jean followed and drove with his heart. At the least, Jean's in the category of drivers who are not just liked on the track, but off it as well. People like that sadly won't drive in the sport again.

  • Frentzen was a really great driver especially in 1999 in the Jordan where he was the underdog for the title along with Irvine and Hakkinen, of course this was the year that Schumacher was out for a majority of the season with a broken leg.

    Later in his career his eyesight got the better of him and obviously affected his performance which led to him retiring from F1 altogether.

  • @holicman Great is too much, he was good when he felt like it, but most of the time, he was sleeping, so to speak

  • i agree, jacques villeneuve ended up in the dump (unfortunately). his father wouldve had more wins had it not been for that damn accident than jacques ever did

  • I do not understand why you would consider Jaques Villneuve wasted, given that he won a championship

  • @wolffan94044 JV is a complete imcompetent arrogant asshole.

  • @lazerpod66 Well, I can see the arguement in both directions, it is just that I, Personally, do not think of someone having won a championship having a wasted career, but it is your opinion in this video

  • @lazerpod66 true

  • de cesaris was a disgrace...

  • Barrichello the friendliest and most sympatic guy ever(except Senna)

  • And how about Eddie Irvine?? i never liked that idiot from the first to last race in he´s career. As Senna said: you are not a racing driver, you are a fucking idiot before bitch slapping him in the Jordan catering tent.

  • Wasted means that the driver had talent and could have extracted much more from his career. I 100% agree with you Sook, Irvine was one stupid arrogant asshole. In a way, I always compared Jacques Villeneuve to that imbecile.

  • @lazerpod66 what's the song.

  • The group is named september, and I'm not sure of the title, but try: never see me again.

  • @lazerpod66 thanks

  • Chris Amon was seen as one of the 3 best drivers in the late 60's and he often outpaced Ickx in the same car. Despite Ferrari offering him to stay in 1970, he didn't believe the new flat12 would be a match for the Cosworth DFV and went to March instead. Then he switched to Matra when they were essentially packing and leaving.

    Reutemann had a couple of good years left in him too I believe.

  • Lazerpod66 I don't fully understand your definition for a "wasted" F1 career.Would that be drivers that never got the chance to drive a competitive car or drivers that got better cars than they deserved and later just disappeared like Villeneuve?

    To me EmersonFittipaldi wasted 5 seasons driving for Copersucar instead of sticking with McLaren or signing for top teams like Williams,Brabham,Ferrari or Lotus.Surely he was still in demand in the late 70's?

    Also ChrisAmon.Always in the wrong car

  • wasted means that a driver like Stefan Johansson who drove in top teams achieved nothing more than a few podiums, way way below what the car at their disposal was capable of.

  • Ok, I understand.

    I agree about Stefan Johansson too. He is my countryman but is nonetheless the last competing F1 driver from Sweden. Bjorn Wirdheim was just a test driver. Johansson is pretty far from the likes of Ronnie Peterson or even Gunnar Nilsson. Jo Bonnier had a looooong career too. Won BRM's first race in Zandvoort 1959.

  • at these conditions Derek Warwick doesn't belong to that list because he mostly achieved lot more than the car was capable.

  • alsei was unlucky he was in bad cars and was on his day as good as senna schumacer and mansell

  • I wouldnt say Jacques Villeneuve had a wasted career, he did get the 1997 Drivers Championship which isn't always down to the car, like Frentzen was hardly ever on Villeneuve's pace in 97 & they were in the same car. Same with Heikki and Hamilton. And with BAR he wanted number 1 status which for the first 2 years he got and he was pretty quick but Panis was a more easy to get a long with driver and when he joined BAR the team was more favourable to Panis which slowly destroyed his F1 career =/

  • It's a good comment Ashbob, but Frentzen is hardly a reference, he has to be one of the most irregular and inconsistent driver in history, along with Raikkonen. In Villeneuve's case, his own over evaluation probably helped him dig his grave.

  • Thank you =) And yeah i do agree with you about Frentzen, with 99 being his most consistent year and i was quite impressed with it to be fair =] & as for Villeneuve, he did in the same sense as Montoya play his mouth a bit too much which didn't help =/ But i do agree with most of the drivers on your list especially De Cesaris =]

  • Great to read your sensible and intelligent comment, you know the sport, glad to see you here.:)

  • Thanks & seems like you do too =) And yeah i'm a bit mad about F1 haha XD

  • i would prob put kimi in there now shud of tryd harder but at least he got 1 championship

  • Don't forget Karl Wendlinger

  • Wedlinger didn't even have a career to waste....

  • Barrichello had a good career. Think he could have win a championship if he wasn't so unlucky. HAD to let schumacher's win some while he's at ferrari, and this year, coz' of a tire, the championship has been decided =\

  • Barrichello is still quick if he gets a good car....

    look at 2009!

    He's still good no needs to retire

  • riccardo patrese should be nr 1

  • Patrese had an excellent career, not wasted at all, he used all his available talent to the full, it's just that he raced against better drivers. But he was an excellent driver, one of the best Italians ever.

  • Not too sure about Boutsen, but then again that might be chauvinism since we're both belgian.

    In 1988 he had 5 3rd places in the N/A Benetton, all behind the McLarens who were simply unbeatable that year.

    3 wins with Williams, 2 of them in pouring rain, one (Hungary 1990) after a huge dogfight with Senna on completely worn tires (he used a no-pitstop strategy if I'm not mistaken).

    Then he killed his carreer by signing for Ligier.

  • Nick Heidfeld - 168 starts to date, 0 wins

  • Barrichello might not belong here, he could win the championship this year.

    Also Villeneuve shouldn't be in here, his tallent is overrated, he could only perform if he had the best car. And Capelli should be nr.1. Berger is a good candidate and also maybe Fisicella?

  • @JolietJakeProduction Fisichella fucked up his own career, ditching his team right after he achieves a pole position with his car....The idiot couldn't tell how badly Luca Badoer was struggling in the other Ferrari...Kimi made driving that Ferrari look easy enough to make Fisichella make a move that spelt the death of his F1 career.

  • @JolietJakeProduction Barrichello does blong on this list, simply because if he wasn't relegated to the position of Schumacher's bitch for so many years, he could have been so much more.

    Vileneuve...he wasn't just technically lazy, but following his championship, and feeling he'd finally risen above his father's shadow, he became just plain lazy...he never seemed to really try anymore, and drove more stupidly as his career went the way of the titanic....the definition of a wasted career.

  • barichello shouldntve settled for 2nd back then when hes still in ferrari. he should be given the best teammate award

  • Barrichello has no colplaints to dish out, he was well aware of the situation when he signed that Ferrari contract.

  • I'd have had Gerhard Berger in my top 3. A fast driver but would always go for money over a team with a faster car.

    John Watson was an interesting guy. His drive in America in 1982 was a performance that was Senna-esque.

  • Agree about Watson, a great natural talent, but no self esteem.

  • He was widely seen as the best overtaker in his prime. After all he still holds the record for a win from furthest down the grid, in 23'rd place in the USA West GP in 1983.

  • jesus that alfa romeo decesaris has looks like a cigerrette box. yeah montoya and possibly ralf schumacher could have been in there. maybe gerhard berger. good top 10 though. pretty much spot on

  • could not agree more witht choies except maybe Johnny Herbert missing

  • hahaha barichellos up there now he might not be the best but hes still up there!

  • Where are Montoya and Brundle?

  • I agree with all except Capelli, he was underrated and in a Ferrari which at the time was pretty much a dog of a car.

  • What I meant by wasted career is that like Capelli, he could have squeezed out soo much more of his career thah he actually did.

  • Yes, De Cesaris was a disgrace for Italy and Formula 1 as whole.

  • He is, thankfully, one of a kind this DeCesaris.

  • Alesi was very fast but one of the unluckiest driver ever.

    I agree with your top ten. ;)

  • May I ask your opinion on the likes of Fisichella, R.Schumacher, Berger, Montoya, Coulthard. Some of the teams these guys have driven for and have so few wins to show for it speaks about their talents.

    the other one I have to mention is Martin Brundle. For those that know their history in F3000 in 1983 Brundle and Ayrton Senna had a very close season long battle for the championship, both went to F1 in 1984 and from there the differences are clear.

  • See my other videos, they likely turned up there.

  • It will be interesting to see how barrichello gets on this year. The car is so fast but i think he is too old to beat Button. i dont know what too think of villeneuve, he won a championship in the fastest car and then went to a team so slow it was difficult to judge how good he was

  • Alesi was pure hype, had an okay start.Then went downhill.Crap at Benetton,crap at Sauber (Diniz outscored him in 99) crap at Prost.Was well past it after 99.Plus he never shut up how 'the car was rubbish' when infact his the Sauber wasn't.Rubbish in my opinion.

  • I think that your laying it hard on Alesi. I grant you that he was foolish on some occasions, but he had a very good 1995 stint at Ferrari, and in his career there, the car usually let him down. I remember he was walking the 95 Monza race only for a wheel bearing to pack up. He had good showings at Benetton, but went nowhere fast after. In a way, he makes me think of Jacques Villeneuve, driving talent but no tech imput.

  • Generally speaking Jeepy, Alesi was more gifted than Jacques Villeneuve, in terms of speed, car control, even balls..... But never managed to get a Villiams like Villeneuve in 96/97....

  • Barrichello is now in the best car,so who knows?

  • Indeed, but in the current set up, Button is more hungry than Barrichello.

  • After Senna's death, Globo TV from Brazil decided to make him the great hope for a new Brazilian champion, and he actually believed that! The national disappointment was huge and for the Brazilian layman he became the "slowest driver" of F-1. He made some very poor choices in his career, lingering too much in Jordan and Ferrari, but I hope he can shut up his critics this year in Brawn GP!

    Força Rubinho!

  • First off I am a huge F1 fan, since the middle 80's it is full of passion and amazing drivers. However I believe that Indy Car may be perceived as a step down but it isn't. There are some amazing drivers in that league, just ask Nigel Mansel. It is no where nearly as technical or have the budgets that F1 has and not as many top tear drivers as F1. I f you think that Indy Car is doesn't take talent watch a race like the Indy 500 or Road America. Indy Car ultimately has a more even playing field.

  • Evilize666: your point answers itself by your own definition..... Nigel Mansell, who was there, literally sliced everyone. I still remember his 1st test in Phenix. He set the record of the track after 40 or 50 laps... Even Paul Newman appeared to shake hands with "il Leone". I still remember Prost, quite an enemy at the time (1993) saying that "when you see Mansell there in Indy, you realize He is like 3 times bigger than the rest"

  • Now, can you remember the driver that came from Indy to F1? Michel Andretti (a total sucker), Montoya (good in talent, and bigmouth as well). Villeneuve... Remember that drivers that did it bad in F1 (or just average drivers), and for whatever reason, in Indy didn't do it that bad, as Serra, Zanardi, Cheever. I don't rate Indy as I rate F1, even when nowadays, I have to say F1 level is terrible.....

  • You've got a point there. I could never quite figure out why he failed so badly afterwards. He was good in CART but I think he just used up all his talent in those 3 years, 1995, 1996 and 1997. As a Canadian, we were extremely proud of him at that time.

  • I agree, but if you take a look at it, Indycar is a major step down from F1, not the same level, hence easier to win there.

  • The worst of that will hopefully change after this year. Chavez's sponsor money bought Milk&Doughnuts (Milko Duno) a top ride. After she causes multiple bad accidents, or worse, kills somebody, the fans, and hopefully, the management, will weed out the PR stunts and go back to it's roots...a series for the best of Formula Atlantics and USAC; a primer North American series for top North American talent.

  • I noticed with Jacques Villeneuve you failed to mention his 11 wins, 13 poles and 1 World Championship. Grant it after that, he made too many bad decisions but not a wasted career!

  • Hi Evilize666, thanks for the comment. Yes, Villeneuve did achieve WC status, but driving the absolute best package, without his tech imput. The rest proved how bad he really was, he achieved nothing because he got himself into a project that he just couldn't handle. Basically, Villeneuve is a lazy driver, technically speaking, incapable to hammer a car into winning shape and that bit him. So from 98 to 2006, he wasted all those years going nowehere real fast.

  • J.Villeneuve should never have let Craig Pollock talk him into BAR, or at least he should never have stayed as long as he did. I agree with your criticisms off him, but given that he did at least manage one world championship I think he shouldn't be in this list.

  • I agree 100%. He got his early rides off of his name (and this comes from a fan of his in his early years). I have to agree, his good years at Williams were because he had a good engineer and a good car, and after his WC, he just didn't seem to care any more. NASCAR wasn't a good move either,,,he ought to stick to INDYCAR or American LeMans,

  • whats the car at 40 seconds? with the john watson guy. and I had no idea red bull has sponsored cars back in the day for heinz harold. Red bull is everywhere jesus .

    and I feel bad for dereck warwick. maybe he could have avoided being a *decent* driver if he only got a chance :( . also what song is this in the video? it's cool .

  • Hi jraybay. Thanks for the comments. The car at 40 seconds is the 1978 Brabham bt46 fancar. It was Gordon Murray's answer to the ground effects Lotus 79. It works awesomely, but the car had the uncomfortable habit of sucking up debris on the track and spitting them out trough the fan to whom ever was following...It was outlawed after that. It race only for 1 race, Anderstorp 78(Swedish Grand Prix)

  • The fancar..... Poor Niki and poor John..... If the car hadn't been outlawed, things could have been better for both. Right after the fan was banned, Brabham car simply sucked!

  • Hi Lucianno buddy, been a while, welcome back friend. Yes, Niki litterally ate Mario at Anderstorp 78. The fan car was another stroke of genious by Gordon Murray, one of the very best engineers of all time.

  • Do you remember that race Jeepy? Lotus got an easy championship in 1978! Imagine Lauda and Watson having the fan car all season,not only in that devastating race in Sweeden!!! Lauda Champion? Or Watson? Why not? I never understood why the fan car was banned, it wasn't legally forbbiden prior to his debut.... The car seemed to be so good, that politics (specially Ferrari and Lotus-Champman) did their best to ban it. They succeded. Anyway, Murray proved to be BRILLIANT!!!.

  • Of course, a hell of a race. Niki simply toyed with mario, and when he had enough of the Lotus's rear wing, he simply floored it and woosh. The flat 12 alfa had mountains of torque and horsepower.

  • Warwick's career was a good example of a waste of talent. He got a decent drive only once at Renault (84-85). Seemed to always mistime his team choices, a shame really. The song for this video is from the band September and is called never see me again, thanks.

  • Warwick.... a very good average driver, He could have got better results surely..... he was unlucky sometimes.... The only time He seemed to have choosen a g.ood team (Lotus), He was vetoed by Senna..... No problem: Ayrton got his "payback" 6 years later...... It would have been good for Lotus to have Derek instead of Satoru Nakajima, a pity.... one of the races I liked best by Warwick was Brands Hatch 1984, excellent podium (Lauda, Warwick and Senna).

  • I remember seeing Warwick actually leading a race right infront of me, Canada 1989 in the pouring rain, between pit stops. I was so happy for Warwick, but the Arrows packed up.

  • HeHe, I remember that race: Prost retired at the beginning due to suspension failure, Senna kicked asses in the rain (as always) till his engine blew out, and the race was won by... Boutsen? Or Patrese? I guess Boutsen..... Warwick did a good job with his Arrows, I agree, it's a pity the car didn't help him so much (a sucking machine), LOL..... I know is off-topic, but the only driver that managed to do something positive for Arrows was Patrese on his early days....

  • Yes, Boutsen came in 1st, and Patrese 2nd, and De crasharis 3rd in the dallara!!!! Patrese almost wonnit in your home race Lucianno in 78. And he took pole at long beach in 81 also. Arrows were a mid grid team, always underfinanced, a pitty, but the 1980 car was a good crop.

  • Did I get this right ? Are you a former driver ?

  • Unfortunately, no.

  • Ok, I just read your comment: "

    I remember seeing Warwick actually leading a race right infront of me, Canada 1989 in the pouring rain, between pit stops. I was so happy for Warwick, but the Arrows packed up." Did sound to me like you were driving in this race, but I have missunderstood this.

  • Andrea De Cesaris raced 15 years, to be honest, it was such a waste of time. There's a lot of wasted talent out there.

  • The only time DeCesaris sort of shone a little is at Tyrrell in 1992.

  • Maybe Jeepy, in that Tyrrell, OK, but we have to admit it was quite modest from all point of view..... He wasn't as bad as always, more than being a good performance...

  • As I said Lucianno, he was good at Tyrrell, but it was his only time.

  • i love the way that villeneuve though he was going to be good in BAR and in 2005 was steamrolled by massa (a driver who was at the time, quite accident prone and not very confident). then in 2006 when BAR became works honda, he was again beaten by another not so hot driver (heidfeld). villeneuve should be a bit higher in this list it think because basically he promised greatness like gilles and then went to nothing...

  • A total waste and a pure joke.

  • H.H.F was real good he could have won 1999 champ great speed

  • Frentzen's carrer is easy to analyse. He came into f1(1993), fell asleep, then briefly woke up in 1999 only to fall back asleep again. He was a very weird and irregular driver, a real shame because he had huge amounts of talent.

  • Frentzen was just another average driver that took part in motorsport.... Just that.... As He didn't find the way to use and show his talent, I conclude that He wasn't talented enough to show his talent (LOL). Conclusion: He was not a Top Drover. Poor career....

  • have you ever watched the 99 F1 season, or his early Sauber years, where he clearly showed talent. Maybe he wasn´t consistent enough, and often had bad luck, but he was not anymore average than Jean Alesi or Gerhard Berger.

    Some other drivers that could make it into this list would be Jos Verstappen (one of the biggest talents I have ever seen in F3, but too many mistakes) and Hans Joachim Stuck who nearly always was stuck in bad cars.

  • I watched all season in the last 30 years or so, and I remember him.... Anyway, the names you mention (Berger or Alesi) don't give him any help: their results were poor.... Good average drivers but.... In fact, if I had to choose some of them, I'd choose Berger, not Alesi or Villeneuve or Frentzen,etc. Verstappen was a good average driver who had bad luck in sharing team with Schumacher, it was the worst thing that could have happened to him, and I happened!!! LOL

  • We can't directly compare Frentzen with Alesi. They took 2 different paths. Frentzen wasn't unlucky, he just was sleeping most of the time, but Alesi was always 100% on the limit anywhere.

  • Correct Jeepy!!!. Two different failures for these guys Alesi and Frentzen. You explained it perfectly... I'll add something more. Alesi was unlucky and his elections in regard to his career were silly. Basically, He sliced himself when He decided to stay in Ferrari from 1991 to 1995. What a pity!!!

  • Instead of Boutsen I'll put Gerhard Berger, really a great great driver, sadly, his stay in McLaren was the same case as Barrichelo's in Ferrari, being Senna's squire.

  • Soo wrong. berger didn't win at McLaren because he wasn't capable of beating Senna. There were NO TEAM ORDERS at McLaren then. On the other hand, Barrichello WAS CAPABLE of beating Schumacher, but was holden back because they were teammorders there, 2 very different situations.

  • That's true, Senna was in a higher level than Berger, but it's also true that in 1991 Championship, Berger was in accordance to use the "waste" of the Brazilian, as the outdated injection system, fuel pump, the engine that was already being quite obsolete, etc (while Senna had the ultimate technology). The issue was that Senna always had the best team (not just technology but also in human resources, evidenced by the many mistakes that Berger had with his mechanics in the pit stops).

  • For '92 Season, things were more balanced, Berger had more human and technological opportunities, which is why the difference in the championship between them was inevitably reduced.

    Greetings

  • Agreed, good comment nigel561

  • :D

    Greetings my friend

  • There were no team orders, but there was a CLEAR #1 in the team Jeepy, called Ayrton Senna. I don't know about machinery, I suppose that if some benefits Senna could have had given his chances for the Title (against Berger who wasn't in the running). In 1992 it was different, and Berger almost finished the season ahead of Ayrton (1 point). But it was a sucking season, for Ayrton and McLaren specially, whose car was terrible....

  • Yeah, the issue was that Berger in '91 accepted to provide the best technological oportunities to Ayrton (by the fastest ascent of the Williams FW14) for win the championship, but in '92 McLaren had a lot of troubles and they had not choice to give the same resources for the two drivers in equal amount.