shadowmarlin22 said:Prost in '86—sure. I'd probably toss in 1982 or maybe 2008 too, but I can't get behind '91 or '95.
Regarding 1991—yeah, the Williams was a beast ahead of its time and all that, but the thing just kept breaking down. Between all those retirements, especially early in the season, they dropped so many points that Senna's class eventually allowed him to snatch it. After that, Mansell went on a tear, but the old pro managed to pull it off anyway.
As for 1995, that’s debatable; it feels like a classic 1a/1b scenario.
Bottom line: looking back over the last 60 years—say, since the 1960s—we have maybe two or three seasons where someone took the title without having the absolute best or even an equal car to the runner-up. But sure, go ahead and attack Lewis 🙏🙏, who has that 2008 run where the Ferrari was clearly the class of the field.
People talk, but Lewis had a more dominant car than, say, Senna or Niki Lauda... Fine, great, but whether he was dominant by one point or 100 points doesn't change the number of titles on his resume. If someone starts arguing Lewis is better than driver X just because he won by a larger margin, they're missing the point—he was driving a monster of a car.
Still, at the end of the day, the guy squeezes everything out of a dominant car, and this is the result we see....
Getting back to the race, there's one thing I don't think anyone has mentioned. Look, Russell is incredible, no question, but you could see a distinct difference—which is totally normal given the circumstances—where Russell would build a lead over Bottas and then lose it every few laps due to some tiny error or something similar. Hamilton's whole thing is that relentless lap-after-lap pace while managing tires; that's his superpower. If Lewis had been driving yesterday, I think the gap between the two Mercedes would have been significantly wider, which gives the pit crew much more breathing room for tire changes and almost certainly prevents mistakes. It's not Russell's fault, obviously, but that's the value of building a consistent advantage—you never know when you'll need that cushion for a double pit stop or whatever.
Did you actually watch '82 or are you just talking nonsense based on some stats you read?
1982 was easily the greatest Formula 1 season ever.
You had two distinct camps—the turbo beasts (Renault, Ferrari, Brabham-BMW) versus the naturally aspirated ones (McLaren-Cosworth, Williams-Cosworth, and Brabham-Cosworth)—each with their own massive pros and cons.
Looking at the whole season, those six cars were pretty much neck-and-neck, though the balance shifted constantly from one race to the next. One car would dominate one weekend, then another would take over the next, and so on.
People seriously deluding themselves thinking Gilles Villeneuve should've won the title. Based on his actual performance, he wouldn't have stood a chance. He was invisible in South Africa. In Brazil, he spun out under pressure from Nelson Piquet. He drove like a amateur in Long Beach. Then Pironi outsmarted him in Imola. And finally, he died at Zolder.
And honestly, Pironi wasn't all that either. He only snagged wins in Imola (a race most teams boycotted anyway) and Zandvoort.
In South Africa, Renault was untouchable. Alain Prost cruised to an easy win even after a tire blowout mid-race.
But by the very next race in Brazil, Prost was nowhere to be seen—the stats might say he won, but watch the actual race and you'll see the truth.
At Long Beach, the McLaren was the class of the field, and Niki Lauda was the best driver. Then in Zolder and Detroit, the McLaren was king again, with John Watson taking the wins and building a solid lead in the championship. But by Canada, they vanished, and Nelson Piquet dominated in the Brabham-BMW.
In the end, Rosberg took the title in the Williams.
And he did it right alongside legends like Prost, Piquet, Lauda, and Watson.
Just watch the full season. It’s worth it.
