[MeatteCen]

A good list, but I think that Kimi deserved to be ahead of at least Kovalainen.

[lierro]

people need to learn the ability to measure ones performances with reference to the ability of the car they are driving.

Impossible task unless a driver is beating the field while driving a car that is well known to be inferior to the ones he beats, and this with no exceptional events involved during the race. (Only Vettel's win in Monza comes close to this).

...in particular Alonso (who is still the best driver in F1, he just is, deal with it english)

There goes your less bit of objectivity down the drain.

Also the ability of a driver to help his team develop the car is also a massively important thing and something that if either massa or hamilton had mastered then one of them would have won the championship well before brazil! And Hamilton's inexperience is no excuse because Vettel showed that he is capable of developing a car this year that was capable of beating RBR which is supposedly the big brother team.

We have no idea how much any of them is helping develop the car they drive.
For all it's worth given the level of the cars at the end of the season it looks like Massa (especially) and Hamilton did a damn fine work in developing their cars (just compare it to how their team mates fared).

1. Alonso - it's fairly clear that he is still the best just driving second rate gear

Yeah "fairly" clear but I fail to see any proof for it!

2. Vettel - fairly obvious...

Again "fairly obvious" but no proof from you. In fact agree that he was at least the 2nd best driver during last season, but he had exceptional results obtained against strong opposition when top drivers didn't get DNF's or had unusual problems during the race.

3. Kubica - utterly consistent, something that cannot be associated with massa or hamilton

I disagree, he is very fast sometimes, but only consistently average overall. And where are his skills in developing a car? as far as everything points Heidfeld is at least as consistent and better at improving the car and setting it up to his own liking (Spa rings a bell).

4. Massa - should have won the championship, but didn't

Very subjective and dismissing comment while Ferrari acknowledged that they were at fault for destroying his chances with stupid mistakes.

5. Hamilton - won the championship, but only because his rival was inconsistent

Like it or not he won it because he got more points than the others. I don't like him but he did well last season. I don't rate him as high as Vettel or Massa but way over Kubica for example.

I guess i should put on a flame proof suit now to protect myself from all those that think lewis is the second coming of jesus....

You better start supporting your views with some proof, that might help you not write rubbish next time.

[Overlord]

We all know the old saying, "Opinions are like ********, everybody's got one." I'll stick with the scoreboard. Pretty soon, we'll have someone's list with Yuje Ide at the top...

[datingcrew]

ioan - ofcourse it's subjective! How on earth could you do such a list of what one individual THINKS is the top drivers without it being subjective? If your ever going to post opinions that differ from the final championship standings then it is totally and utterly impossible for those opinions to be free from subjectivity!!! Are you a bit slow or something...

[lierro]

ioan - ofcourse it's subjective! How on earth could you do such a list of what one individual THINKS is the top drivers without it being subjective? If your ever going to post opinions that differ from the final championship standings then it is totally and utterly impossible for those opinions to be free from subjectivity!!!

A certain level of subjectivity will always exists because no one is perfect, but to say "it's fairly clear" x is the best, without even the slightest proof is not called subjective but utterly biased.

[VZF74G0M]

Impossible task unless a driver is beating the field while driving a car that is well known to be inferior to the ones he beats, and this with no exceptional events involved during the race. (Only Vettel's win in Monza comes close to this).



There goes your less bit of objectivity down the drain.



We have no idea how much any of them is helping develop the car they drive.
For all it's worth given the level of the cars at the end of the season it looks like Massa (especially) and Hamilton did a damn fine work in developing their cars (just compare it to how their team mates fared).



Yeah "fairly" clear but I fail to see any proof for it!



Again "fairly obvious" but no proof from you. In fact agree that he was at least the 2nd best driver during last season, but he had exceptional results obtained against strong opposition when top drivers didn't get DNF's or had unusual problems during the race.



I disagree, he is very fast sometimes, but only consistently average overall. And where are his skills in developing a car? as far as everything points Heidfeld is at least as consistent and better at improving the car and setting it up to his own liking (Spa rings a bell).




Very subjective and dismissing comment while Ferrari acknowledged that they were at fault for destroying his chances with stupid mistakes.



Like it or not he won it because he got more points than the others. I don't like him but he did well last season. I don't rate him as high as Vettel or Massa but way over Kubica for example.



You better start supporting your views with some proof, that might help you not write rubbish next time.

That has to rank as the best post I have read from you

i don't agree with all of it but enjoyed reading it.

[Discus]

Impossible task unless a driver is beating the field while driving a car that is well known to be inferior to the ones he beats, and this with no exceptional events involved during the race. (Only Vettel's win in Monza comes close to this).

How about Alonso being top points scorer from last 8 races (nearly half a season) in clearly not the best car.

Back to topic, I find it hard to understand how Hamilton or Massa can be classed as best drivers over course of season.

Whilst they both had amazing drives, in particular Brazil and Silverstone IMO, which can be classed amongst best drives of the season, they weren't the best over course of season, I'd put Alonso, Vettel and Kubica above both Hamilton and Massa.

[VZF74G0M]

How about Alonso being top points scorer from last 8 races (nearly half a season) in clearly not the best car.

Back to topic, I find it hard to understand how Hamilton or Massa can be classed as best drivers over course of season.

Whilst they both had amazing drives, in particular Brazil and Silverstone IMO, which can be classed amongst best drives of the season, they weren't the best over course of season, I'd put Alonso, Vettel and Kubica above both Hamilton and Massa.

I don't quite agree there mate.

Fred was woeful in the first half of the season but suddenly the Renault had a makeover and was on the pace again.

He drove a mega 2nd half of the season though

Best driver for me was Kubica although I found myself going off him personally as the year went on. Vettel was also a revelation

[lierro]

How about Alonso being top points scorer from last 8 races (nearly half a season) in clearly not the best car.

Luck, huge luck.
In Singapore he got lucky with the SC just after his pitstop and with Ferrari screwing up Massa.
At Fuji Hamilton's starting red mist took out of top position contention both Ferraris and McLarens.

Other than that FA and his Renault never had the race pace to beat the top 2 teams.

I think I was as objective as possible.

FA's first half of the season completely disqualifies him from getting one of the top 3 best drivers of the season positions.

Back to topic, I find it hard to understand how Hamilton or Massa can be classed as best drivers over course of season.

If I look at how Hamilton and Massa performed during the season I can honestly say that only Vettel and Kimi were able to beat them without SC or mechanical DNF disruptions. Kovalainen, Kubica and Alonso got wins too but in circumstances when the top 2 were hindered by events they had no possibility to control.

based on this it is fair to say they were the best 2 drivers out there followed by Vettel and Kimi (I rated Vettel better than Kimi because of the cars they had at disposal).

[Discus]

I don't quite agree there mate.

Fred was woeful in the first half of the season but suddenly the Renault had a makeover and was on the pace again.

He drove a mega 2nd half of the season though

Best driver for me was Kubica although I found myself going off him personally as the year went on. Vettel was also a revelation

This reply is for both Ioan and you btw,

I guess its all up for argument. For me, if you look at the first half of the season, his pace was strong, at times the Renault was an inferior package to Williams, STR, Red Bull and Toyota, the midfield fighters, and he continously got into Q3, and in point scoring positions.

He had a few silly errors which cost him, Monaco springs to mind, but I look at these as calculated risk, he had nothing to lose, and in those conditions, your able to punch above your weight, he took a risk in how he was going to race, and it didn't pay off.

But in an uncompetitive car he took a more risky approach, and it often backfired. But from what I interpretted of the first half of the season, it was much similar to Kubica second half of the season, he done a sterling job of getting a car not worthy of consistant point finishes into exactly that.

He also had bad luck, Spain springs to mind.

Good luck and bad luck are part of racing. How you react to these situations is what counts.

In Fuji, you can argue he was lucky that Lewis put himself out of contention, putting Massa out as well, but racing incidents are part of F1, and he put himself in a position to win that race, by errors of other drivers.

In Singapore, for sure he was lucky, but he was unlikely to have a car failure in qualifying, where he looked set for a top 3 starting position.

Renault, knowing nature of the track, and likelyhood of a SC period within first stint of the race, put him on a low first stint. They decided that, it was a risk, and it paid off.

[EntectCelpelm]

Luck, huge luck.
In Singapore he got lucky with the SC just after his pitstop and with Ferrari screwing up Massa.
At Fuji Hamilton's starting red mist took out of top position contention both Ferraris and McLarens.

Other than that FA and his Renault never had the race pace to beat the top 2 teams.

I think I was as objective as possible.

FA's first half of the season completely disqualifies him from getting one of the top 3 best drivers of the season positions.

Basically it sounds like you don't rate Feranando as a driver. You forgot how crap the Renault was when it started the season. Not even Alonso could qualify it into Q3 in the first few races.

Fernando never really had the car.

In China he was wasn't far off from a podium, Brazil he sandwiched the Ferraris.

Fuji was absolutely stunning. Kubica held off Kimi when the BMW went into a horrible graining phase and Alonso destroyed Kubica with pit strategy to take advantage of Kubica's Achilles heel.

[lierro]

Basically it sounds like you don't rate Feranando as a driver. You forgot how crap the Renault was when it started the season. Not even Alonso could qualify it into Q3 in the first few races.

Fernando never really had the car.

Take a look to my posts about him during the season, I rate quite highly, but I'm not "in love" with him.

Well his results were truly awful in the first half, NP Jr managed to outrace him on a couple occasions.

... Brazil he sandwiched the Ferraris.

Not sure how he managed that.

Fuji was absolutely stunning. Kubica held off Kimi when the BMW went into a horrible graining phase and Alonso destroyed Kubica with pit strategy to take advantage of Kubica's Achilles heel.

If it wasn't for Lewy's move in the first corner I doubt that Fernando would have finished better than 5th.

[bataovady]

In my book Hamilton, Massa, Kubica, Alonso and Vettel performance-levels were all roughly on the same level in 2008 with the two Toyota guys, Webber, Räikkönen and Heidfeld making up the second tier.

We may endlessly debate, who should be a No.1, but all of those five had their moments of brilliance, all of them had their lows and fair share of disappointing performances. And this is what can be quite widely acknowledged, me thinks. Talking about shining in a top car (pro FM/LH arguments) vs shining in a "bad car" (pro-RK/FA/SV arguments), then if an example is brought, then it's quite a tough call, which performance was more impressive - Hamilton at Silverstone or Sutil at Monaco. Both were truly amazing drives taking into account all factors (car performance included).

What counts against nominating Vettel as an overall No.1 is that he is still quite an unproven driver. The examples of Frentzen and Fisichella should be cautionary enough to avoid nominating someone as a surefire top dog before reaching a top team even despite excellent drives in a midfield car. Kubica was for long keeping the honour as a driver of the year, but his end-season drop in form made it a bit doubtful. What makes the rating of him harder, is that we won't know for sure, how competitive BMW exactly was, its performance fluctuated quite a lot (struggling in France, Hungary and Brazil, at the same time RK was doing very well at Fuji despite the rumours that BMW had stopped development by then). And to be fair, to me Kubica is a bit of an unproven driver too. His advantage over Heidfeld derived from qualifying as they seemed roughly equal in races. And also - I'm awaiting for more brilliant seasons from RK to get a better evaluation. A lot of drivers have had one excellent season - like Frentzen in '99, or Button in '04, but who rates them as an all-time star?

[estheticianI]

In my book Hamilton, Massa, Kubica, Alonso and Vettel performance-levels were all roughly on the same level in 2008 with the two Toyota guys, Webber, Räikkönen and Heidfeld making up the second tier.

We may endlessly debate, who should be a No.1, but all of those five had their moments of brilliance, all of them had their lows and fair share of disappointing performances. And this is what can be quite widely acknowledged, me thinks. Talking about shining in a top car (pro FM/LH arguments) vs shining in a "bad car" (pro-RK/FA/SV arguments), then if an example is brought, then it's quite a tough call, which performance was more impressive - Hamilton at Silverstone or Sutil at Monaco. Both were truly amazing drives taking into account all factors (car performance included).

What counts against nominating Vettel as an overall No.1 is that he is still quite an unproven driver. The examples of Frentzen and Fisichella should be cautionary enough to avoid nominating someone as a surefire top dog before reaching a top team even despite excellent drives in a midfield car. Kubica was for long keeping the honour as a driver of the year, but his end-season drop in form made it a bit doubtful. What makes the rating of him harder, is that we won't know for sure, how competitive BMW exactly was, its performance fluctuated quite a lot (struggling in France, Hungary and Brazil, at the same time RK was doing very well at Fuji despite the rumours that BMW had stopped development by then). And to be fair, to me Kubica is a bit of an unproven driver too. His advantage over Heidfeld derived from qualifying as they seemed roughly equal in races. And also - I'm awaiting for more brilliant seasons from RK to get a better evaluation. A lot of drivers have had one excellent season - like Frentzen in '99, or Button in '04, but who rates them as an all-time star?

Well evaluated, couldn't have put it better myself...

[avaissema]

I just got my copy of Autocourse yesterday and I was quite keen to read the top 10 after this thread was running. Anyway, 2 things bugged me about what Alan Henry wrote in his chapter on each driver. On Kubica he notes that if the rating was "really taking into account machinery available" then Kubica would be "number 1 by a country mile". I couldnt agree more with that statement but I have to ask why he bothers writing "based on equipment available to them" in the leader to the Top 10...

Another one that bugged me was just a historical inaccuracy, claiming that Kovalinen was the first McLaren driver not to help in a 1-2 finish for the team. Funny, but I don't recall Andrea de Cesaris finishing second to John Watson in the '81 British GP...

Personally I feel that the top three should have been Kubica, Massa and then Hamilton, purely because Kubica did the best job with almost no mistakes. Besides 2 driving mistakes at the beginning of the year Massa drove really well and only mechanical failures denied him scoring more points and thus the title, hardly the fault of the driver. As for Hamilton, he stuffed up way too often to be considered the best. Yes he drove well in the wet but his mistakes in Canada and Japan prove he's too mistake-prone. Lets face it he was incredibly lucky to win Monaco cos once again he's made a mistake. He made another mistake in Brazil which let Vettel through and would have cost him the title had Glock not slowed down.

[vernotixas]

Typical British Ethnocentrism.
Anybody who doesn't have Alonso as #1 knows nothing about racing.

Yeah, let`s just forget how he raced till Renault improved the car and how he kept spinning and crashing.

I
I disagree, he is very fast sometimes, but only consistently average overall. And where are his skills in developing a car? as far as everything points Heidfeld is at least as consistent and better at improving the car and setting it up to his own liking (Spa rings a bell).

If Kubica is average, then what does that make of Heidfeld? A moron?

Also, I would be quite interested to know how you found out that Kubica is a bad tester and developer of the car?
After all, Heidfeld sucked so much this year BMW concentrated extra resources on him to help him improve.