Two types of F1 driver?

[Speed Badger]

I have long thought that there are two main types of driver - ones who need to prove themselves to be the best, over and over again, such as Schumacher, Prost, Hamilton, Vettel, Senna. And those who, once having climbed the summit to be F1 World Driver's Champion, realising a lifelong dream, they are done, its good enough, such as Button, Hill, Raikkonen, Rosberg, Hunt.

You see it in other sports as well, some individuals winning time and again, such as Hendry in snooker, Federer in tennis, etc. But in those sports you will sometimes get someone random winning a title where they have put maximum focus into that one tournament / season / championship and won it, then fade back to being a decent, but not relentlessly winning player / driver.

[sparta6]

All I see today is either the Corporate Automatrons, playing it safe and driving as instructed by their engineers
OR
Flamboyant balls-out drivers such as Alonso and Verstappen.

Sadly we will never again get the daring characters of Hunt or Villeneuve, but at least Max and Alonso provide some occassional colour to the tedious train.

[37chevy]

sparta6 said:

All I see today is either the Corporate Automatrons, playing it safe and driving as instructed by their engineers
OR
Flamboyant balls-out drivers such as Alonso and Verstappen.

Sadly we will never again get the daring characters of Hunt or Villeneuve, but at least Max and Alonso provide some occassional colour to the tedious train.

I’m interested in your view of where Hamilton sits in your 2 types?

[Exige77]

Rosberg was in the “always having to prove himself” camp also, but couldn’t quite manage it with Hamilton as his team mate.

He got lucky and pipped him one year and new it wouldn’t hspotn again so promptly retired.

He did run Hamilton close, which is credit to him, but he was never going to be top dog over a long time.

[Hungrymc]

That’s two types of F1 champion.... there is at least one more type of F1 driver (who will never achieve being a champion).

Max as an example could yet be any of the three. He doesn’t seem results focused, is driven by ego or arrogance and focused on the moment. They’re really big flaws when you consider the need to get into a championship capable car and then hold a season (or more) together.

What stopped Alonso winning more? Not his driving but his behaviour / attitude?

Then you have the likes of Rossi in MotoGP. Could have more titles but he spent some key years of his career refreshing the challenge by switching manufactures instead of focusing on maximum championship wins.

[TonyToniTone]

That doesn't make sense as Button, Hill, Raikkonen and Hunt all raced again as World Champions.

[//j17]

Speed Badger said:

I have long thought that there are two main types of driver - ones who need to prove themselves to be the best, over and over again, such as Schumacher, Prost, Hamilton, Vettel, Senna. And those who, once having climbed the summit to be F1 World Driver's Champion, realising a lifelong dream, they are done, its good enough, such as Button, Hill, Raikkonen, Rosberg, Hunt.

I don't think the boxes are that simple myself.

Button and Hill - Only really had 1 season where the combination of car+driver talent meant they could win.

Raikkonen - Being the oldest man on the grid and willing to drop down from Ferrari to Sauber hardly sounds like a man who came, one the drivers title and said "That will do".

Rosberg - My impression of him's improved since he retired. Rather than getting the title and saying "Job done" I very much get the impression he looked around him in the weeks after winning the title and decided he didn't like the person he had had to become in order to win and that there were other, more important things in his life, like his family.

[Salamura]

//j17 said:

Button and Hill - Only really had 1 season where the combination of car+driver talent meant they could win.

It certainly seemed that Hill lost his motivation after his world title. In '99 Frentzen showed that the Jordan was not a bad car at all, and was capable of winning and fighting for the championship, and Hill was nowhere.

Although I respect the man, It's probably fair putting Sheckter in that category as well.

[Kraken]

I think it's just a reflection of how comfortable some people are in their own skin. I've never seen the point of winning the same title over and over. Each time I've won a karting or car title I've defended it the next year, sometimes successfully, and then moved on. I've proved to myself that I can do it so that's enough for me and there's always a bigger/different challenge elsewhere

[sparta6]

37chevy said:

sparta6 said:

All I see today is either the Corporate Automatrons, playing it safe and driving as instructed by their engineers
OR
Flamboyant balls-out drivers such as Alonso and Verstappen.

Sadly we will never again get the daring characters of Hunt or Villeneuve, but at least Max and Alonso provide some occassional colour to the tedious train.

I’m interested in your view of where Hamilton sits in your 2 types?

Somewhere between the two, depending on his mood.

[sparta6]

Hungrymc said:

Then you have the likes of Rossi in MotoGP. Could have more titles but he spent some key years of his career refreshing the challenge by switching manufactures instead of focusing on maximum championship wins.

Rossi is an enigma. Achieved GOAT status years ago and it's quite astonishing that he can still run at the sharp end at his venerable age.
As you say, he's not phased at all by going to an iffy team when it means a monumental challenge in even having a sniff of another WDC.
A true master.

[sgtBerbatov]

Salamura said:

//j17 said:

Button and Hill - Only really had 1 season where the combination of car+driver talent meant they could win.

It certainly seemed that Hill lost his motivation after his world title. In '99 Frentzen showed that the Jordan was not a bad car at all, and was capable of winning and fighting for the championship, and Hill was nowhere.

From reading Hill's autobiography I think his mental health - especially in 1999 - was more of a cause for his downfall than Frentzen.

Jacques Villeneuve has to be in the second group for sure.

[entropy]

To some extent there is a truth in the OP but I'd say right car, right moment has a lot to do with it as well as emotion, desire, motivation and talent.

Hill and Nico Rosberg recognised the limits to their talents though I would rate Nico a better driver than Hill.

Hunt's desire and motivation dwindled with the realisation that he would never have the opportunity like his WDC year.

Button has only had one opportunity - right car, right moment - at winning the WDC. Would I question his subsequent desire or motivation? Certainly not judging by his move to McLaren. Similar with Mansell who would have loved to have more than one WDC.

Jacques Villeneuve was never had the right car, right moment to fight for more titles.

[Kraken]

Button made it clear that the reason for going to McLaren was primarily to pit himself against Hamilton rather than trying for another title. He saw the title as job done and was looking for the next challenge.

[entropy]

Kraken said:

Button made it clear that the reason for going to McLaren was primarily to pit himself against Hamilton rather than trying for another title. He saw the title as job done and was looking for the next challenge.

What would have been the "next challenge"?

Would it not be to win another title and beating Hamliton at the same time?