yea sometimes i get bored script writing so i decide to throw in a joke or an interesting bit 😂

you make a good point however if it wasn’t for moss’ generosity it would be stirling on this list not mike, mike only got 3 wins, 1 in his title campaign, the only properly great win he got was in the race of the century, if it wasn’t for his title he wouldn’t be seen as any better than peter collins and definitely not better than moss

a gentleman ,but also a loser !

Yea that’s a shame, never a good qualifier and quite aggressive but beat Brabham in his own car

Jim Clark was the most skilled driver to race F1. His peers all thought he was the best, heck Fangio out and out said he was the best ever.

ah you’re right mate, i thought i read somewhere that it was fuji but clearly either my memory faltered or the source was wrong, nonetheless i was wrong, sorry for the mistake

all these sweet comments i’ve been getting recently really cheer me up and motivate me to push videos out, currently about two thirds of the way through writing a script, then after that video is posted i’ll do the ranking champions part 2

i agree with you personally i put clark in number 1 on pure talent but unfortunately due to my own ranking system, his lack of longevity screws him over. it’s annoying because i think on pure talent he deserves it but i tried to make this list include many factors and not just pure performance

Yep I understand you have to use one style of ranking system throughout regardless of any personal preference to keep things fair. They are all world champions at end of the day so fantastic achievement to all. When will part two be available. I’m pretty curious as to where it goes from here

@@hugoagogo9435 the script for part one took me three weeks to write and i’ve not started part two yet, im now writing a video about the 1982 season and how crazy it was

👍

​@@nedzosf1gridbox Did you started part 2 now??

ouch…….

@@nedzosf1gridbox to be fair to the man he was very good around Hungary in most seasons but he is just so overrated and is an awful commentator. Not calling him an illegitimate champion because he did earn it but overall he was just a bit mediocre for a champion

That crash in 94 should be on both of them. Even if you want to blame MS fully for it, hill wasn't a saint either, especially in 95 with those payback crashes.

I think Hill was one of those who got better by sheer hard work. He had talent but, a bit like his father, he had to push himself. It think the rating is a good one

Between 1992-1996, Michael Schumacher won 22 races. Damon Hill won 21. That's the fact Schumi fanboys don't want you to know.

thank you mate

and what do you mean by my “honesty”?

i think that’s a big what if, he’s one of a kind but that helps and hampers him because although it’s a great achievement we don’t know if other great bikers of his era could’ve done the same

Surtees would also probably have been world champion in 1966 if he had not gotten totally pissed off with Ferrari politics and quit the team after the Belgian Grand Prix - one of his greatest wins - you can see him driving Ferrari number 6 there in 'Grand Prix'

@@nedzosf1gridbox I think Geoff Duke tried some 4-wheel racing but wasn't that successful at it.

@@nedzosf1gridbox Mike Hailwood was an all-time great on 2 wheels but didn't achieve success in F1

fair point

I mean he was nicknamed “The Bear” lol

you make some fair points, however i don’t think he was that competitive after his imola crash, that’s one of the main reasons he’s ranked lower

@@nedzosf1gridbox he won races after the crash. He had worde cars after the crash If anything , it proves how good he was . In 1990 Benneton would not be considered top 3 car, yet he pushed it there. 1991 is underrated as well. He had a better season than Prost . All of a sudden, when Prost was in a mediocre car, suddenly he did not look that good too.

@@nedzosf1gridbox but ok, lets see what will you say about compettitiveness when Mansell or Button come up , or Vettel. All drivers who had slumps during their career , and who could not cope wit different types of cars, unlike Piquet

i mean fair enough although all his races he won after his crash were due to all faster drivers falling off the track, and himself in uncompetitive lotuses of 88 and 89 he was nowhere

@@nedzosf1gridbox in uncompetitive Lotuses he was nowhere. Then you are taking quality of cars against him , not his drivers quality... A race was never won by a worse car , if a guy in a faster car does not crash. Thats the point ...

Yea, I’ve realised how wrong this video is in some areas ever since producing it

lol im not sure if you’re being sarcastic or not

fangio actually didn’t drive in f1 at all in 1952 due to a broken neck, and in 52 and 53 the Ferrari was head and shoulders above the field, as you can see in my video about the time F1 ran F2 cars. it is the most dominant car in f1 history and the only reason it’s not known as such is because of the indy 500 which was part of the calendar back then. no offence to alberto he was a top level quality driver but using 52 and 53 results to compare against fangio is unfair. also his longevity holds him back, only five full seasons isn’t much for a champion although that’s not something he planned, it’s part of the criteria and it lowers his rank. great legendary driver but unfortunately circumstances weigh him down

You ranked him waaaaay too high, though. Higher than Fitipaldi? WTF?! Higher than Damon Hill?! Higher than Jochen Rindt and James Hunt? That is beyond me, sorry. 😮

@@Lacktausch well he beat Hamilton in equal machinery😁😁 !

@@19megamustaine85 Yeah, and after that he was done for. He knew too well, that he will never again achieve anything near that Championship in F1. 🤷‍♂️😉

‘twas sarcasm my friend 😂

if you listened at the start of the video i said the ranking system i used tended to favour more recent drivers regardless of how i did it so some results are going to be skewed. even so just because you don’t agree with me doesn’t mean i don’t have any knowledge of f1, i know everything there is to know about the sport, just because there are some misplaced rankings doesn’t make me inept mate

also in response to your claims, keke was faster than nico throughout his career but has less longevity and historical significance which ranks him down. andretti is maybe a fairer match as he was in f1 for a while although only did like 6 or 7 full seasons because he was a journeyman of all motorsport. piquet was great but his peak performance wasn’t as good as the others. a 3 time champion isn’t guaranteed to be better than drivers with less titles like you suggest, plus after his imola crash he lost a lot of his already weak peak performance. it’s not weak in a general sense it’s weak compared to everyone else. if we look at his title wins, he had the fastest but maybe not most reliable car, 1 mediocre teammate, 1 good but not championship quality teammate, and with mansell he had to use political wrangling from honda to get number 1 treatment and get in mansell’s head by being himself name calling. piquet was great but at times he wasn’t, outside of his title wins (two of which you could argue were relatively easy), he struggled in the 84 and 85 brabham, him joining lotus was a shitshow and at benetton the only reason he got his wins wears because the fast drivers in front of him fell off the road. as i said he was a great driver, anyone who’s a triple champion is, there’s just lots of caveats to his accolades and sometimes just looking at the stats doesn’t tell the full picture

Nico has to surely be ranked alongside Hamilton and ahead of Schumacher if you consider performance in the same cars. Nico drove uncompetitive cars for most of his career. It was only the few years where he drove with Lewis that he was in a championship winning capable car and if I remember he gave Lewis a run for his money.

nico being lower is based on longevity which nico lacks and peak performance which he didn’t have much of, he couldn’t regularly outperform lewis

@@nedzosf1gridbox quite inept knowledge , probably received reading British press. 83 title was easy 🤦, Piquet had a slower car than Prost for most of the season, until last four races...and that was easy .

yea mate he undoubtedly had buckets of talent but when you have all the other f1 champions as your competition for this list it’s curtains for phil

( without the negativity)

A lot of effort for an inept ranking . The more I listen, the more his ineptness comes to light.

I don’t know mate, I heard this alternate pronunciation after personally having always said the L, then I assumed this alternate pronunciation without the L was the correct one because I’d never heard it before

@@nedzosf1gridbox Just one of those things I suppose. 🙂

some haven’t, some have

@@nedzosf1gridbox Hu-L-me

that’s a fair point i may do this in the future

i’m already working on a different video, after that i’ll work on part 2. sorry for the long delay it’s just i had uni exams and went through some mental health issues, but i’m back on the right tracks now

@@nedzosf1gridbox ok i see

I’ve done a video on my top 10 drivers already and his career was covered by Josh Revell

i realised this while editing lol i just completely forgot to correct it, my bad

@@nedzosf1gridbox lol small mistake but nice video though, really interesting points you made

@@cltr7505 thanks glad to hear you enjoyed it, a new video should be coming out soon in the next few days too

And Pietro stood in for Grosjean in Sakhir and Abu Dhabi.

@@matthiascerebri3315i did say that lol

what do you mean

@@nedzosf1gridbox A bit late but probably because he's 7x WDC, not 8.

Init

thanks for your kind comments, there will never be full agreement but when you justify your reasons i can get on board with your opinions, plus you’re very respectful unlike some in this comments section 😂

@@nedzosf1gridbox Haha, yes. Some comments remain a mystery to me, e.g. the appraisal of Jim Clark (no, I don't want to say anything against voting him on pole besides Senna or Fangio) who hasn't yet even been mentioned. And yes, there will never be full agreement. At least, I'm happy that you didn't put Schumacher into the second half (I'm sure we will read some comments on Schumi critics and haters in the next section).

yea it’s because plosive sounds and the angle i hold the microphone at don’t work well together, i do wanna get a good mic in the future

yea, i did

i understand your disagreement but the main factors that fell against piquet were his longevity and his lack of ability to beat his better teammates, he didn’t beat mansell nor schumacher and outside of that seemed to always have a submissive or otherwise number 2 driver

Longevity? 60 podiums, winning races over 11 years, champion for Two teams, three engine manufacturers, ground effect and none, teammates from Hunt to Schumacher and won a title with Mansell as his teammate, something Nigel needed a car with a 1 second advantage and a nearly retired teammate to pull off. Tsk.

@@marctownsend5711 ignoring my points entirely. he might’ve been in f1 for 13 years but he was only at his peak performance for a small period. he only ever had major success in dominant cars with teammates who had a major disadvantage whether it be talent wise or due to internal politics. he was washed after his imola crash because he couldn’t lead races from the front and he’s not a bad driver he’s just not as good as people above him

@@nedzosf1gridbox dude, Piquet beat Mansell. He was the one who took the championship. And he was a Brazilian driver, competing against a British driver, with a strong British sponsor (British Tobacco) in a British team. After Frank's accident, Patrick Head was all for giving the UK (and British Tobacco) a British champion after almost a decade. Piquet's politics play in 87 was self-defense. Mansell only won the championship once and with a car that was orders of magnitude better than the others. And Mansell failed miserably at Lotus (being called an idiot by Peter Warr), failed miserably at Ferrari. He basically was competitive only at Williams.

i respect your opinions

I would put Jody in fornt of Hunt. Jody was a better driver , and beat better teammates .

in my scoring system they got equal rating overall with my three ranking criteria, if that eases your dilemma

@@kekepiket9153 but Hunt beat people who had much better cars

@@NonFlyiingDutchman yet , it is unknown for certain did he have a worse car, and if yes, by how much...When you have no teammates , it is an unknown

good question, it’s in the works, i’ll start writing the script after i’ve finished and published my current video that i’m writing

yea someone else pointed that out too, my mistake lol, the first of hopefully not many

again mario was very talented but his longevity hurts him, he only had a handful of full f1 seasons whether that be due to his other commitments or other reasons, his ranking was mostly lower because of that

i’d just like to point out every champion has had the best or second best car of the season, including the likes of clark, senna and especially schumi. 94 schumi had imo the better car than hill, definitely did in 95 then from 2000-04 had the best car for at least a portion of the season but in 02 and 04 that was eccentuated. lewis is very similar to michael in terms of car dominance but you don’t seem to rank michael lower for that reason. also in 97,98,99 and 06 michael couldn’t beat his rival when he either didn’t have the best car or had a very evenly matched car

@@nedzosf1gridbox You forget Michael would have easily won the championship in '99 if he didn't break his leg and miss 7 races.

@@Rimsy79 to be honest i think mika could’ve challenged him if he didn’t keep making stupid errors

what do you mean by unnecessarily disrespectful

@@nedzosf1gridbox Flippant comments about deceased world champions.

i like dark humour, i think humour is subjective though so i respect your opinions

you can say rindt was lucky but that’s racing, ickx later said if he’d have had the choice looking back he wouldn’t have taken it off jochen, but in that same interview he insinuated it was a blessing in disguise that he didn’t get the points to usurp rindt, not that he didn’t want to overtake him

fair enough mate, sorry for the late reply but i did correct myself in the latest video i did. i heard it being used by some people and thought that was the correct pronunciation but clearly i was wrong

i said achievements outside of f1 don’t count if you listened to the intro

with the greatest respect seb and piquet were both very similar in the way they could only win championships in the best car and when they had a car that was even slightly below they struggled

@@nedzosf1gridbox Piquet is still the only driver up to date, who won 2 championships without the best car. Only dominant car he drove was 87 Williams . Unlike Seb, Piquet could and did drive any type of car.

@@kekepiket9153 1981 is debatable but in 1983 he probably had the fastest car, the only reason it wasn’t better in the constructors was all of patreses retirements

@@nedzosf1gridbox in 83 for most of the season Renault was a better car . Look at Silverstone, Paul Ricard, Renault had the upper hand. All the way up to Italy . On top of that back then, Prost was unconsistant in street course, especially Detroit . Nelson kept close by accumulating points and not making mistakes. Brabham, Bmw kept on developing until last few races , when it evidently became better . Add a bit of Prost becoming nervous at the end, Cheever was suddenly much closer to Prost than in the start of the season. Ferrari was the best car , it had reliability and speed , and good drivers, only perhaps drivers with some bigger flaws than Prost and Piquet.

@@nedzosf1gridbox with all due respect, Piquet ranked lower than Mansell is a total joke. Piquet is a three time world champion, while Mansell only won once and with a car it was impossible to lose. In fact, it was Mansell who could only win a championship with a car that was not only the best, but orders of magnitude better than the others. And when they were teammates, Piquet won the championship over Mansell. And he was competing against a British teammate (with a strong British sponsor) in a British team. Before Senna started to shine, Piquet and Prost were the best drivers of the 80's. He didn't go to Maclaren because Prost shat his pants with the idea of being teammate with Piquet. Prost had influence on this kind of decision at Maclaren at that time and he pushed hard for Senna instead. Of course, he now says that he did it because he wanted what was best for the team and Senna was the future. I sense that Piquet's controversial character usually influences people's evaluation of his performance as a driver, especially when the person doing the evaluation is English.

😂

i think “the best f1 racer” is a bit of an exaggeration, it was the better car but it wasn’t the best of all time in comparison to those around it

the crucial word in that sentence is “would be”. i covered ascari and his dominance in the f2 era in a previous video but the main thing holding him back is his longevity due to his untimely death, had he continued considering he died aged 36 it’s probable that he would’ve achieved more but we’ll never know

fair enough mate, the reason ascari is so low is due to his lack of longevity, and the fact he didn’t achieve much outside of his two years in arguably the most dominant car in f1 history, had he not died, we could’ve seen how his lancia project would’ve gone, as for piquet i had an extensive debate with someone else in the comments, piquet is definitely great but his low ranking isn’t due to him being bad but instead him being less good than the others

I think 18th is about right for Piquet, but he definitely wouldn’t land in the top 10. He wasn’t quick but he was consistent in reliable machinery that would garner him a championship / runner up. He was nowhere near as quick as Rosberg, Mansell, Prost, Senna and even the likes of Schumacher, Watson and Reutemann. He was supposed to go McLaren in 1988 instead of Senna but that did not happen. That alone says something.

@@jtr5336 Up until arrival od Senna , Piquet was the guy with the most pole positions in the 80's. And quicker than most in Pro cars, equal cars, ina series of races . Including the guys you mentioned. Considered by his engineers , among them Gordon Murray , more complete than Senna . And then some guy says he was not quick 🤣🤦

@@kekepiket9153 hence why I said if he was in a reliable car then he would be in contention. He’s a good driver but blighted with shit cars and wasn’t the quickest. In 1984, his car was the quickest over a lap coz of the regulations but the car was super duper unreliable. Think of Ferrari 2019 but 10x worse, that’s how it was with him and he was reigning world champion. A lot of the cars he had were very unreliable. If he went up against a solid teammate then he would be matched or bettered. He was very lucky to win the 1987 championship.

@@jtr5336 with all due respect, Piquet ranked lower than Mansell is a total joke. Piquet is a three time world champion, while Mansell only won once and with a car it was impossible to lose. And when they were teammates, Piquet won the championship. And he was competing against a British teammate (with a strong British sponsor) in a British team. Piquet didn't go to Maclaren because Prost shat his pants with the idea of being teammate with Piquet. Prost had influence on this kind of decision at Maclaren at that time and he pushed hard for Senna instead. Of course, he now says that he did it because he wanted what was best for the team and Senna was the future. So yeah, Piquet not going to Maclaren says a lot about how feared he was

thats fair, all my rankings are opinion based, could you provide some justification to your opinions so i can see where you’re coming from?

@@nedzosf1gridbox In respect to Andretti he was very often oupaced by is team mates. Peterson, Reutemman, Angelis, etc. Exception to Gunnar Nilson, but he was sick. Hill was a very fast driver but a very fragile and to insecure to be a World Champion.

fair points, i think my ranking and its parameters didn’t count for the things you mentioned

@@nedzosf1gridbox I understand. if we consider longevity things change a little. That´s perhaps you put Andretti so above.

yea, thanks mate i’d like to thank you for having a civil and kind conversation with healthy debate, some others in this comments section could take some advice from you

he’s objectively the least successful world champion in f1 terms, 3 race wins and 98 career points even in an era with less races and points isn’t great. i understand he may have accolades outside f1 but i did state that only f1 achievements counted in this video

not gonna lie mate if it’s useless what’s the point commenting

@@nedzosf1gridbox I made a valid point, your reply however, not so much. Cheers...

what i’m saying is if you think it’s useless to list or rank things then why comment on a video that does just that. you’re just spreading negativity when you could just not say anything

@@nedzosf1gridbox Question for you young man, how can you possibly rank every F1 world champion when you've only been on this planet for 18 years ??????

@@rogeeeferrari by that logic how can anyone rank the f1 champions, there’s only a very very small percentage of f1 fans nowadays who have been alive since the first race in 1950, never mind watching f1 since then. i might be young but i do know what i’m talking about. saying that i don’t believe my opinions should be taken as facts but i do think that criticising someone based on something they can’t control is a low blow. i haven’t watched every race live but i’ve seen i’d say about 90% of f1 races since 1980, and at least a portion of 80% of f1 races before then. i know all the intricacies that go with f1 and i know all the stats and facts even dating back to the 50s, but i also have watched most races so i’m not blinded by numbers and i’ve watched races so i don’t just know results but context as well. i don’t claim to know absolutely everything about f1 nor do i claim my opinions or rankings to be facts, but i know more about f1 than 99.9 percent of modern f1 fans, i’ve got experience watching races first hand on tv, hearing about the stories of old races, watching the old races that i wasn’t alive for, and i learned about the career trajectories of every driver in this list, not just for this video but i knew most of it anyway. i believe everyone should be entitled to their opinions because it’s a free world and no one is 100% correct with everything they say regardless of how much they know or how much they have watched f1. just because i’m relatively young doesn’t make my opinions less valid, fair enough i don’t have first hand experience of driving in f1 or any major racing series but only a small percentage of people do, and the only way you’re going to get analysis like that is by interviewing ex f1 drivers or going on sky sports or channel 4 or other similar medias. in conclusion i think it’s harsh to judge someone’s knowledge based purely on age and your perception of young people in general, especially when you don’t know their personal background. of course everyone makes assumptions based on their own experiences but always be prepared to be challenged on your view of how the world world, especially if you give a direct opinion towards someone or something

what’s that mean

sorry mate im looking for a new one now

i have to disagree, he did fall off quickly but in his early career he was mega fast

agreed

Disregarding he lost 80 due to engine failure , 86 due to engine failure in Belgium. And drove worse cars than Mansell , Prost and Senna throughout most of his career...

@@kekepiket9153 2 points: He is a horrid man; he got blown away by Mansell in 86 and 87!

@@richardmortimer8147 a lot of ineptness here. 86 difference between Mansell and Piquet was 1 point, . Your definition of blown away. The first comment explains your subjectivity , which is not a good reason for apparent lack of knowledge.

Piquet and Prost were the best drivers in the 80's until Senna started to shine. Absurd to rank him lower than Mansell, whom he beat for the championship as teammate and a driver who only won a championship once with a car it was impossible to lose.

what do you mean by that mate

That is a bit unkind

i’m not british biased, it’s just opinions are subjective. like you think jacques is too high, that’s an opinion and i respect that. piquet isn’t banned for talking shit, loads of ex drivers do that like jacques and others, however he crossed a line when he used a racial slur towards lewis hamilton. criticise drivers all you want for their driving or other things they can control but don’t criticise them for something they can’t control

@@nedzosf1gridbox Nah, your opinions seem to bash Rosberg a lot for beating lil bling in 2016, but it's okay, you're british. I don't think he should've called him a negro or whatever else he used, but he also shouldn't be banned from f1 completely, especially a 3 time world champion that f1 made good money off of.

@@nedzosf1gridbox Piquet didn't use a racial slur to refer to Lewis. N-word is a English word and he was talking in Portuguese. The word he used in Portuguese is a false friend with the N-word. The world, I suspect, was purposefully mistranslated by the PC vigilants to make him look bad, probably because his controversial support for Bolsonaro in Brazil. And yes, you're British biased. The British, especially the English, always hated Piquet