planetf1.com

pokerman wrote:

F1 MERCENARY wrote:The reason an Indy car has a wider operating range is because by comparison, they are turds designed to go fast on ovals primarily, and have kits to adapt them better for course tracks, but are still quite clumsy off of ovals. The Tires in Indy also allow for a greater operational window because they’re built to perform to a better standard than those of F1, and they have to be, given the speeds at which they’re traveling at on ovals with concrete walls and ZERO runoff area.

Both require an equal amount of skill, but unique to each.

As for Bourdias not doing well in F1, he was drafted into a team that was mediocre at best and he didn’t feel comfortable there and it showed. The gap all those years ago was greater than it is today and today, people harp on drivers claiming they’re just not good enough for thousands of a second, which is the problem. Bourdias needed more time and a better team closer to the front to showcase his talents better.

Damata was overhyped a bit IMPO. He was a very solid driver, but he was only dominant for a very brief time, and then he got called up to drive a Toyota F1 car. A team in constant disarray where almost every driver they hired struggled. And Damata was a better driver than Glock but somehow Glock managed to retain a seat in F1 for several years.

It doesn't matter what car you drive in F1 if you are getting beat by your teammate, the problem for Bourdais was not getting beat by Vettel in his rookie season, the problem for him was that in his second season he was getting beat by a rookie called Sebastian Buemi, why did Bourdias in particular need all this special care and attention?

Don't recall saying Bordais required special attention. While I understand your comparing his performance to Vettel & Buemi, you need to keep in mind both of those Rookies were quite familiar with the team as they'd been a part of their program for years and Bordais wasn't accustomed to the characteristics of European race cars the way both Vettel & Buemi were and he spent A TON of time trying to find the ever elusive setup he liked, because in his mind there had to be a way to achieve a better setup, rather than just learn to drive a car that had shortcomings. And when Tost would get on him to just get on with driving because he wasn't fast enough, instead of being the usual tail between his legs driver most teams are accustomed to employing, Bordais would have none of it and would often push back and even raise his voice and that did not sit well with the powers that be. Had he not been a stickler for perfection, and been more easy going, he might have remains with the team at least through the duration of his contract. The way he was abruptly given the boot was wrong which is why they paid him handsomely to go quietly.

Interestingly enough, once back to racing in America, he was back challenging for top spots on small budget teams, often for just a handful of races, or however many their minuscule budgets would allow, but then would be hired to drive for other teams who needed better results.

Had he found himself in a better team in F1, everyones' opinion of him would likely be different today.

DOLOMITE wrote:

mcdo wrote:I still think that elite group of Hamilton-Vettel-Verstappen-Ricciardo-Alonso are the very best drivers in the world. The jury might be out on one or two of them at the moment but I'll wait til 2019 is over before jumping to any conclusions

However I don't think any list of top drivers in motorsport is complete without Scott Dixon. He's a living legend. And most of the F1 field will never achieve the things he has

definitely one of the drivers I am surprised never made the jump. He had a test way back but I guess just the right deal never came up.

Maybe as been mooted before a top Indycar driver is not prepared to make the jump into a midfield F1 team whilst a top F1 team is not prepared to take a risk with what they may view an unproven driver at F1 level?

F1 MERCENARY wrote:

pokerman wrote:

F1 MERCENARY wrote:The reason an Indy car has a wider operating range is because by comparison, they are turds designed to go fast on ovals primarily, and have kits to adapt them better for course tracks, but are still quite clumsy off of ovals. The Tires in Indy also allow for a greater operational window because they’re built to perform to a better standard than those of F1, and they have to be, given the speeds at which they’re traveling at on ovals with concrete walls and ZERO runoff area.

Both require an equal amount of skill, but unique to each.

As for Bourdias not doing well in F1, he was drafted into a team that was mediocre at best and he didn’t feel comfortable there and it showed. The gap all those years ago was greater than it is today and today, people harp on drivers claiming they’re just not good enough for thousands of a second, which is the problem. Bourdias needed more time and a better team closer to the front to showcase his talents better.

Damata was overhyped a bit IMPO. He was a very solid driver, but he was only dominant for a very brief time, and then he got called up to drive a Toyota F1 car. A team in constant disarray where almost every driver they hired struggled. And Damata was a better driver than Glock but somehow Glock managed to retain a seat in F1 for several years.

It doesn't matter what car you drive in F1 if you are getting beat by your teammate, the problem for Bourdais was not getting beat by Vettel in his rookie season, the problem for him was that in his second season he was getting beat by a rookie called Sebastian Buemi, why did Bourdias in particular need all this special care and attention?

Don't recall saying Bordais required special attention. While I understand your comparing his performance to Vettel & Buemi, you need to keep in mind both of those Rookies were quite familiar with the team as they'd been a part of their program for years and Bordais wasn't accustomed to the characteristics of European race cars the way both Vettel & Buemi were and he spent A TON of time trying to find the ever elusive setup he liked, because in his mind there had to be a way to achieve a better setup, rather than just learn to drive a car that had shortcomings. And when Tost would get on him to just get on with driving because he wasn't fast enough, instead of being the usual tail between his legs driver most teams are accustomed to employing, Bordais would have none of it and would often push back and even raise his voice and that did not sit well with the powers that be. Had he not been a stickler for perfection, and been more easy going, he might have remains with the team at least through the duration of his contract. The way he was abruptly given the boot was wrong which is why they paid him handsomely to go quietly.

Interestingly enough, once back to racing in America, he was back challenging for top spots on small budget teams, often for just a handful of races, or however many their minuscule budgets would allow, but then would be hired to drive for other teams who needed better results.

Had he found himself in a better team in F1, everyones' opinion of him would likely be different today.

Fair enough and thanks for the insight but when we take an overview of elite F1 drivers like Alonso, Hamilton and Verstappen would they had the same struggles?

I don't think many would question that a top Indycar driver would not make a solid F1 driver, in respect to Bourdais he hadn't driven in European based cars and circuits for many years but that's very much were he learned his apprenticeship, he was the European F3000 Champion.

I would!!!

I believe a top Indy Car driver would indeed make a solid F1 driver. The F1 elitism in this forum irritated the heck out of me. Give a quality Indy Car driver a decent ride, not a bottom feeder team as has been suggested, give them a real chance to get to know the circuits, and I think some may have to eat some crow.

pokerman wrote:I don't think many would question that a top Indycar driver would not make a solid F1 driver

Blake wrote:I would!!!

I believe a top Indy Car driver would indeed make a solid F1 driver. The F1 elitism in this forum irritated the heck out of me. Give a quality Indy Car driver a decent ride, not a bottom feeder team as has been suggested, give them a real chance to get to know the circuits, and I think some may have to eat some crow.

I think poker didn't quite phrase that as he wanted. I believe he's accepting that a top IndyCar driver would make a solid F1 driver, not denying it.

If it's meant the way it's written, however, then yeah - I think it's pretty clear that someone like Dixon would be a solid F1 driver at the least.

Exediron wrote:

pokerman wrote:I don't think many would question that a top Indycar driver would not make a solid F1 driver

Blake wrote:I would!!!

I believe a top Indy Car driver would indeed make a solid F1 driver. The F1 elitism in this forum irritated the heck out of me. Give a quality Indy Car driver a decent ride, not a bottom feeder team as has been suggested, give them a real chance to get to know the circuits, and I think some may have to eat some crow.

I think poker didn't quite phrase that as he wanted. I believe he's accepting that a top IndyCar driver would make a solid F1 driver, not denying it.

If it's meant the way it's written, however, then yeah - I think it's pretty clear that someone like Dixon would be a solid F1 driver at the least.

Yeah that's what I meant, I can see that I didn't word it too well.

Blake wrote:I would!!!

I believe a top Indy Car driver would indeed make a solid F1 driver. The F1 elitism in this forum irritated the heck out of me. Give a quality Indy Car driver a decent ride, not a bottom feeder team as has been suggested, give them a real chance to get to know the circuits, and I think some may have to eat some crow.

I fully agree Blake. I mentioned Jacques Villeneuve, and he did just that. He came from Indycar, and because he did get a top car, did his preparation, and came extremely close to winning the WDC on his rookie season.


Just yesterday I was discussing with a few fellow racing fans that the Bathurst and Road America tracks are truly great tracks, but not accepted because they are not in Europe. One of the root causes is ignorance, many who tout Formula One as the greatest have not been exposed to other series.

This forum (and others of this nature) are a very small slice of the racing world. It is like pretending you are an expert on pastries, but have eaten just pecan pies.

Blinky McSquinty wrote:

Blake wrote:I would!!!

I believe a top Indy Car driver would indeed make a solid F1 driver. The F1 elitism in this forum irritated the heck out of me. Give a quality Indy Car driver a decent ride, not a bottom feeder team as has been suggested, give them a real chance to get to know the circuits, and I think some may have to eat some crow.

I fully agree Blake. I mentioned Jacques Villeneuve, and he did just that. He came from Indycar, and because he did get a top car, did his preparation, and came extremely close to winning the WDC on his rookie season.


Just yesterday I was discussing with a few fellow racing fans that the Bathurst and Road America tracks are truly great tracks, but not accepted because they are not in Europe. One of the root causes is ignorance, many who tout Formula One as the greatest have not been exposed to other series.

This forum (and others of this nature) are a very small slice of the racing world. It is like pretending you are an expert on pastries, but have eaten just pecan pies.

Jacques Villenueve didn't just walk into a top car he walked into a dominant car which as we found out later exaggerated just how good he was.

pokerman wrote: Jacques Villenueve didn't just walk into a top car he walked into a dominant car which as we found out later exaggerated just how good he was.

I'd agree with that too. I always wanted to believe Villeneuve was better than the stats suggest.

What is handy is that he had a good few teammates to benchmark against - and ones of varying ability

Picking two metrics

1)Av Classification When Both Finished
2)Ahead When Both Finished

you get

1)

JV vs Zonta (7) 6.7 / 10.1 (-3.4)
JV vs Frentzen (16) 3.9 / 5.1 (-1.2)
JV vs Panis (11) 6.9 / 8.0 (-1.1)
JV Vs Hill (9) 1.8 / 2.0 (-0.2)
--
JV vs Massa (11) 10.7 / 9.2 (+1.5)
JV vs Heidfeld (7) 10.1 / 8.1 (+2.0)
JV vs Button (4) 10.0 / 7.5 (+2.5)
JV vs Alonso (3) 10.3 / 4.3 (+6.0)

So

Alonso
Button
Heidfeld
Massa
--Villeneuve--
Hill
Panis
Frentzen
Zonta

2)

JV vs Zonta: 7/0
JV vs Panis: 7/4
JV vs Frentzen: 9/7
-----
JV vs Hill: 4/5
JV vs Heidfeld: 2/5
JV vs Massa: 3/8
JV vs Button: 1/3
JV vs Alonso: 0/3

Which gives you

Alonso
Button
Massa
Heidfeld
Hill
--Villeneuve--
Frentzen
Panis
Zonta

And it's worth noting that the drivers that beat him by the biggest margin (Alonso, Button,Massa) were @ 10 years younger.

However you cut it, as impressive as his F1 debut appears, his post-WDC record doesn't paint him in a great light. And in the context of this thread a top Champ driver appeared to be a mid-grid F1 driver.

DOLOMITE wrote:

pokerman wrote: Jacques Villenueve didn't just walk into a top car he walked into a dominant car which as we found out later exaggerated just how good he was.

I'd agree with that too. I always wanted to believe Villeneuve was better than the stats suggest.

What is handy is that he had a good few teammates to benchmark against - and ones of varying ability

Picking two metrics

1)Av Classification When Both Finished
2)Ahead When Both Finished

you get

1)

JV vs Zonta (7) 6.7 / 10.1 (-3.4)
JV vs Frentzen (16) 3.9 / 5.1 (-1.2)
JV vs Panis (11) 6.9 / 8.0 (-1.1)
JV Vs Hill (9) 1.8 / 2.0 (-0.2)
--
JV vs Massa (11) 10.7 / 9.2 (+1.5)
JV vs Heidfeld (7) 10.1 / 8.1 (+2.0)
JV vs Button (4) 10.0 / 7.5 (+2.5)
JV vs Alonso (3) 10.3 / 4.3 (+6.0)

So

Alonso
Button
Heidfeld
Massa
--Villeneuve--
Hill
Panis
Frentzen
Zonta

2)

JV vs Zonta: 7/0
JV vs Panis: 7/4
JV vs Frentzen: 9/7
-----
JV vs Hill: 4/5
JV vs Heidfeld: 2/5
JV vs Massa: 3/8
JV vs Button: 1/3
JV vs Alonso: 0/3

Which gives you

Alonso
Button
Massa
Heidfeld
Hill
--Villeneuve--
Frentzen
Panis
Zonta

And it's worth noting that the drivers that beat him by the biggest margin (Alonso, Button,Massa) were @ 10 years younger.

However you cut it, as impressive as his F1 debut appears, his post-WDC record doesn't paint him in a great light. And in the context of this thread a top Champ driver appeared to be a mid-grid F1 driver.

Thanks for the leg work.

DOLOMITE wrote:However you cut it, as impressive as his F1 debut appears, his post-WDC record doesn't paint him in a great light. And in the context of this thread a top Champ driver appeared to be a mid-grid F1 driver.

It is a shame you did so much good work. I say that because there were two distinct Jacques Villeneuve, the pre and post WDC. The instant he won the WDC all he wanted was money, and he sapped a lot of valuable resources from Williams. I was a huge fan of Jacques, but once he earned his WDC, I despised the jerk he transformed into.

And I double despise him because he was the one who triggered the decline of Williams. Maybe their fate was sealed by new management methods and changing technology. But his was the boot that pushed Williams over the precipice.

Blinky McSquinty wrote:

DOLOMITE wrote:However you cut it, as impressive as his F1 debut appears, his post-WDC record doesn't paint him in a great light. And in the context of this thread a top Champ driver appeared to be a mid-grid F1 driver.

It is a shame you did so much good work. I say that because there were two distinct Jacques Villeneuve, the pre and post WDC. The instant he won the WDC all he wanted was money, and he sapped a lot of valuable resources from Williams. I was a huge fan of Jacques, but once he earned his WDC, I despised the jerk he transformed into.

And I double despise him because he was the one who triggered the decline of Williams. Maybe their fate was sealed by new management methods and changing technology. But his was the boot that pushed Williams over the precipice.

Here here Blinky!!

I got to see Jaques live and in the flesh and that little Canadian dude was immensely quick EVERYWHERE and a better, more balanced and supremely calculating version of his father. He was able to do things others could only contemplate with ease and did it in his own distinct way. From his late and abrupt braking into turn on an oval almost the same way you do on a course track and then punching it harder than anyone without inexplicably losing traction as you'd hear his engine revving far higher than anyone else mid corner, he was special. Then as you pointed out, he allowed his success swell his head and he began his downward spiral, which drained William's finances, though it was about damn time they paid a driver a significant wage!!! But as well, he moved to Honda for a ton of money too and it also seemed to stifle their progress as well. Just a shame as he could have been one of the all-time greats, and I heard from a friend who used to be a McLaren engineer/master machinist that Ferrari had their eye on him from the very beginning and he's not 100% sure, but he believes he might have partnered with Michael!

How wild would that have been??!?!??

F1 MERCENARY wrote:

Blinky McSquinty wrote:

DOLOMITE wrote:However you cut it, as impressive as his F1 debut appears, his post-WDC record doesn't paint him in a great light. And in the context of this thread a top Champ driver appeared to be a mid-grid F1 driver.

It is a shame you did so much good work. I say that because there were two distinct Jacques Villeneuve, the pre and post WDC. The instant he won the WDC all he wanted was money, and he sapped a lot of valuable resources from Williams. I was a huge fan of Jacques, but once he earned his WDC, I despised the jerk he transformed into.

And I double despise him because he was the one who triggered the decline of Williams. Maybe their fate was sealed by new management methods and changing technology. But his was the boot that pushed Williams over the precipice.

Here here Blinky!!

I got to see Jaques live and in the flesh and that little Canadian dude was immensely quick EVERYWHERE and a better, more balanced and supremely calculating version of his father. He was able to do things others could only contemplate with ease and did it in his own distinct way. From his late and abrupt braking into turn on an oval almost the same way you do on a course track and then punching it harder than anyone without inexplicably losing traction as you'd hear his engine revving far higher than anyone else mid corner, he was special. Then as you pointed out, he allowed his success swell his head and he began his downward spiral, which drained William's finances, though it was about damn time they paid a driver a significant wage!!! But as well, he moved to Honda for a ton of money too and it also seemed to stifle their progress as well. Just a shame as he could have been one of the all-time greats, and I heard from a friend who used to be a McLaren engineer/master machinist that Ferrari had their eye on him from the very beginning and he's not 100% sure, but he believes he might have partnered with Michael!

How wild would that have been??!?!??

OK, but if he was so "special" and had the potential to be an all time great, where does that leave the list of F1 drivers that appear at least to have been better than him? Surely the whole salary demand/ego aspect is irrelevant in this context?

I find it rather excessive, to say the least, to put the blame on Villeneuve for the huge amounts of money he got after his WDC. See this as the reason why Williams fierce management became more and more a problem than a solution and their designers weren't able any more to conceive a great car borders the ridiculous.
I don't think he put a gun on anybody's head to force them to sign the checks. And this can be said of any of the overpaid egocentric drivers and engineers making tons of money from the F1 racket bubble...

DOLOMITE wrote:

F1 MERCENARY wrote:

Blinky McSquinty wrote:

DOLOMITE wrote:However you cut it, as impressive as his F1 debut appears, his post-WDC record doesn't paint him in a great light. And in the context of this thread a top Champ driver appeared to be a mid-grid F1 driver.

It is a shame you did so much good work. I say that because there were two distinct Jacques Villeneuve, the pre and post WDC. The instant he won the WDC all he wanted was money, and he sapped a lot of valuable resources from Williams. I was a huge fan of Jacques, but once he earned his WDC, I despised the jerk he transformed into.

And I double despise him because he was the one who triggered the decline of Williams. Maybe their fate was sealed by new management methods and changing technology. But his was the boot that pushed Williams over the precipice.

Here here Blinky!!

I got to see Jaques live and in the flesh and that little Canadian dude was immensely quick EVERYWHERE and a better, more balanced and supremely calculating version of his father. He was able to do things others could only contemplate with ease and did it in his own distinct way. From his late and abrupt braking into turn on an oval almost the same way you do on a course track and then punching it harder than anyone without inexplicably losing traction as you'd hear his engine revving far higher than anyone else mid corner, he was special. Then as you pointed out, he allowed his success swell his head and he began his downward spiral, which drained William's finances, though it was about damn time they paid a driver a significant wage!!! But as well, he moved to Honda for a ton of money too and it also seemed to stifle their progress as well. Just a shame as he could have been one of the all-time greats, and I heard from a friend who used to be a McLaren engineer/master machinist that Ferrari had their eye on him from the very beginning and he's not 100% sure, but he believes he might have partnered with Michael!

How wild would that have been??!?!??

OK, but if he was so "special" and had the potential to be an all time great, where does that leave the list of F1 drivers that appear at least to have been better than him? Surely the whole salary demand/ego aspect is irrelevant in this context?

Yeah the logic of it all baffles me as well, he only looked special in a special car.

Harpo wrote:I find it rather excessive, to say the least, to put the blame on Villeneuve for the huge amounts of money he got after his WDC. See this as the reason why Williams fierce management became more and more a problem than a solution and their designers weren't able any more to conceive a great car borders the ridiculous.
I don't think he put a gun on anybody's head to force them to sign the checks. And this can be said of any of the overpaid egocentric drivers and engineers making tons of money from the F1 racket bubble...

Indeed the Williams decline actually was the result of Newey leaving the team after 1996, he was good friends with Hill and wasn't overly impressed by Hill's sacking by Williams.

re Villeneuve and the ££ I have no issue with that. Ask for what you can - if people are daft enough to pay you it, more fool them...

pokerman wrote:

Harpo wrote:I find it rather excessive, to say the least, to put the blame on Villeneuve for the huge amounts of money he got after his WDC. See this as the reason why Williams fierce management became more and more a problem than a solution and their designers weren't able any more to conceive a great car borders the ridiculous.
I don't think he put a gun on anybody's head to force them to sign the checks. And this can be said of any of the overpaid egocentric drivers and engineers making tons of money from the F1 racket bubble...

Indeed the Williams decline actually was the result of Newey leaving the team after 1996, he was good friends with Hill and wasn't overly impressed by Hill's sacking by Williams.

I think it's a lot more complex. Don't forget they lost the Works Renault engines at the same time. With BMW they still won almost every season. They just didn't have enough to overcome Ferrari and Schumacher.

mikeyg123 wrote: I think it's a lot more complex. Don't forget they lost the Works Renault engines at the same time. With BMW they still won almost every season. They just didn't have enough to overcome Ferrari and Schumacher/ Brawn/Byrne/Todt

"fixed" that for you...

mikeyg123 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Harpo wrote:I find it rather excessive, to say the least, to put the blame on Villeneuve for the huge amounts of money he got after his WDC. See this as the reason why Williams fierce management became more and more a problem than a solution and their designers weren't able any more to conceive a great car borders the ridiculous.
I don't think he put a gun on anybody's head to force them to sign the checks. And this can be said of any of the overpaid egocentric drivers and engineers making tons of money from the F1 racket bubble...

Indeed the Williams decline actually was the result of Newey leaving the team after 1996, he was good friends with Hill and wasn't overly impressed by Hill's sacking by Williams.

I think it's a lot more complex. Don't forget they lost the Works Renault engines at the same time. With BMW they still won almost every season. They just didn't have enough to overcome Ferrari and Schumacher.

Yeah I don't really remember that, but then again it's not really anything to do with how much JV was getting paid?

Harpo wrote:I find it rather excessive, to say the least, to put the blame on Villeneuve for the huge amounts of money he got after his WDC. See this as the reason why Williams fierce management became more and more a problem than a solution and their designers weren't able any more to conceive a great car borders the ridiculous.
I don't think he put a gun on anybody's head to force them to sign the checks. And this can be said of any of the overpaid egocentric drivers and engineers making tons of money from the F1 racket bubble...

In a way he did… Imagine having this prodigy come to your team and be immediately on pace with the guy who was at the time the best driver in F1, and then imagine he wins the championship and becomes everyone's preferred new hire and is being offered a large sum to leave after you've invested time and money into further developing him to become that champion. It's smart business to protect and procure your investment in order to maintain your edge and keep your greatest asset away from prying hands.

That's why guys like Vettel, Alonso, Hamilton, Rosberg, and Ricciardo get as much money as they get. Their employers had to pay increasing sums to ensure they remained with the outfit, and when another team wanted to sign them, they had to offer even more money and/or perks which amount to a lot of money. In great part they have Jaques and Michael to thank for that, as they both raised the salary scale for drivers.

Williams have a history and philosophy where they feel drivers aren't worthy of large salaries and any money with decent capabilities could drive their cars the way elite drivers can, and that's been proven wrong. They've had so many top talents go because of that mentality and that has likely cost them more than the money they've spent on driver salaries.

Every company has a few key employees that earn a great deal more money than everyone else, and with athletes in particular, they receive exorbitant amounts of money for playing a sport at a high level. I mean Renaldo is absuuuuuuurdly overpaid to play one of the most boring sports on earth with some of the fakest fans (My dad was a professional soccer player and this what I've seen my entire life), simply because the sport brings in so much money. I find that F1 teams should be made to pay a minimum salary the first year or two and then if a driver proves his worth, he can enter negotiations or be terminated for not meeting their standard. These guys place their lives on the line every time they step inside the car to a greater degree than most other athletes, so they should garner significant salaries commensurate with the budgets and risks involved.

DOLOMITE wrote:

F1 MERCENARY wrote:

Blinky McSquinty wrote:

DOLOMITE wrote:However you cut it, as impressive as his F1 debut appears, his post-WDC record doesn't paint him in a great light. And in the context of this thread a top Champ driver appeared to be a mid-grid F1 driver.

It is a shame you did so much good work. I say that because there were two distinct Jacques Villeneuve, the pre and post WDC. The instant he won the WDC all he wanted was money, and he sapped a lot of valuable resources from Williams. I was a huge fan of Jacques, but once he earned his WDC, I despised the jerk he transformed into.

And I double despise him because he was the one who triggered the decline of Williams. Maybe their fate was sealed by new management methods and changing technology. But his was the boot that pushed Williams over the precipice.

Here here Blinky!!

I got to see Jaques live and in the flesh and that little Canadian dude was immensely quick EVERYWHERE and a better, more balanced and supremely calculating version of his father. He was able to do things others could only contemplate with ease and did it in his own distinct way. From his late and abrupt braking into turn on an oval almost the same way you do on a course track and then punching it harder than anyone without inexplicably losing traction as you'd hear his engine revving far higher than anyone else mid corner, he was special. Then as you pointed out, he allowed his success swell his head and he began his downward spiral, which drained William's finances, though it was about damn time they paid a driver a significant wage!!! But as well, he moved to Honda for a ton of money too and it also seemed to stifle their progress as well. Just a shame as he could have been one of the all-time greats, and I heard from a friend who used to be a McLaren engineer/master machinist that Ferrari had their eye on him from the very beginning and he's not 100% sure, but he believes he might have partnered with Michael!

How wild would that have been??!?!??

OK, but if he was so "special" and had the potential to be an all time great, where does that leave the list of F1 drivers that appear at least to have been better than him? Surely the whole salary demand/ego aspect is irrelevant in this context?

WHOM and WHERE in his first 2 seasons did you see any driver other than Schumacher did you actually see ANYONE better than Jaques… I'll wait…

Fact is, no one did. As Blinky pointed out, it was only after his championship season that JV developed the arrogant chip on his shoulder and a cockiness that saw him concentrate more on his image than on his driving, and ONLY THEN did we see anyone "appear" to be better than him. Even still, he had a few races where his ability shined which left many of us frustrated because we knew that's exactly what he was capable of every weekend.

The only other driver that showed as much promise as JV was the late Gregg Moore, whom I though would have done exceedingly well in F1, and IMPO JV was even better from what he showed us.

F1 MERCENARY wrote:

DOLOMITE wrote:

F1 MERCENARY wrote:

Blinky McSquinty wrote:

DOLOMITE wrote:However you cut it, as impressive as his F1 debut appears, his post-WDC record doesn't paint him in a great light. And in the context of this thread a top Champ driver appeared to be a mid-grid F1 driver.

It is a shame you did so much good work. I say that because there were two distinct Jacques Villeneuve, the pre and post WDC. The instant he won the WDC all he wanted was money, and he sapped a lot of valuable resources from Williams. I was a huge fan of Jacques, but once he earned his WDC, I despised the jerk he transformed into.

And I double despise him because he was the one who triggered the decline of Williams. Maybe their fate was sealed by new management methods and changing technology. But his was the boot that pushed Williams over the precipice.

Here here Blinky!!

I got to see Jaques live and in the flesh and that little Canadian dude was immensely quick EVERYWHERE and a better, more balanced and supremely calculating version of his father. He was able to do things others could only contemplate with ease and did it in his own distinct way. From his late and abrupt braking into turn on an oval almost the same way you do on a course track and then punching it harder than anyone without inexplicably losing traction as you'd hear his engine revving far higher than anyone else mid corner, he was special. Then as you pointed out, he allowed his success swell his head and he began his downward spiral, which drained William's finances, though it was about damn time they paid a driver a significant wage!!! But as well, he moved to Honda for a ton of money too and it also seemed to stifle their progress as well. Just a shame as he could have been one of the all-time greats, and I heard from a friend who used to be a McLaren engineer/master machinist that Ferrari had their eye on him from the very beginning and he's not 100% sure, but he believes he might have partnered with Michael!

How wild would that have been??!?!??

OK, but if he was so "special" and had the potential to be an all time great, where does that leave the list of F1 drivers that appear at least to have been better than him? Surely the whole salary demand/ego aspect is irrelevant in this context?

WHOM and WHERE in his first 2 seasons did you see any driver other than Schumacher did you actually see ANYONE better than Jaques… I'll wait…

Fact is, no one did. As Blinky pointed out, it was only after his championship season that JV developed the arrogant chip on his shoulder and a cockiness that saw him concentrate more on his image than on his driving, and ONLY THEN did we see anyone "appear" to be better than him. Even still, he had a few races where his ability shined which left many of us frustrated because we knew that's exactly what he was capable of every weekend.

The only other driver that showed as much promise as JV was the late Gregg Moore, whom I though would have done exceedingly well in F1, and IMPO JV was even better from what he showed us.

Pretty sure he was beaten by Hill....

And I think multiple drivers were better than him in 97.

I think it's too much of a cop out to declare his performance just fell off a cliff after 97.

F1 MERCENARY wrote: WHOM and WHERE in his first 2 seasons did you see any driver other than Schumacher did you actually see ANYONE better than Jaques… I'll wait…

Fact is, no one did. As Blinky pointed out, it was only after his championship season that JV developed the arrogant chip on his shoulder and a cockiness that saw him concentrate more on his image than on his driving, and ONLY THEN did we see anyone "appear" to be better than him. Even still, he had a few races where his ability shined which left many of us frustrated because we knew that's exactly what he was capable of every weekend.

The only other driver that showed as much promise as JV was the late Gregg Moore, whom I though would have done exceedingly well in F1, and IMPO JV was even better from what he showed us.

I didn't specify the first 2 seasons... and for good reason. Villeneuve was in F1 for svereal years, in several teams, with different team mates and in cars of varying potential. So we have a pretty good set of data to try and establish just how good he actually was.

I'm just trying to understand how if he was as good as you suggest, he failed to dominate some of the other teammates he had given his experience? Are you saying that his driving dropped off that much purely because of his ego which went into overdrive at the same time he started to drive non WDC potential cars? That just seems very convenient. Surely a great driver would continue to show their ability no matter what the car or teammate - Alonso certainly did.

mikeyg123 wrote:

F1 MERCENARY wrote:

DOLOMITE wrote:

F1 MERCENARY wrote: Here here Blinky!!

I got to see Jaques live and in the flesh and that little Canadian dude was immensely quick EVERYWHERE and a better, more balanced and supremely calculating version of his father. He was able to do things others could only contemplate with ease and did it in his own distinct way. From his late and abrupt braking into turn on an oval almost the same way you do on a course track and then punching it harder than anyone without inexplicably losing traction as you'd hear his engine revving far higher than anyone else mid corner, he was special. Then as you pointed out, he allowed his success swell his head and he began his downward spiral, which drained William's finances, though it was about damn time they paid a driver a significant wage!!! But as well, he moved to Honda for a ton of money too and it also seemed to stifle their progress as well. Just a shame as he could have been one of the all-time greats, and I heard from a friend who used to be a McLaren engineer/master machinist that Ferrari had their eye on him from the very beginning and he's not 100% sure, but he believes he might have partnered with Michael!

How wild would that have been??!?!??

OK, but if he was so "special" and had the potential to be an all time great, where does that leave the list of F1 drivers that appear at least to have been better than him? Surely the whole salary demand/ego aspect is irrelevant in this context?

WHOM and WHERE in his first 2 seasons did you see any driver other than Schumacher did you actually see ANYONE better than Jaques… I'll wait…

Fact is, no one did. As Blinky pointed out, it was only after his championship season that JV developed the arrogant chip on his shoulder and a cockiness that saw him concentrate more on his image than on his driving, and ONLY THEN did we see anyone "appear" to be better than him. Even still, he had a few races where his ability shined which left many of us frustrated because we knew that's exactly what he was capable of every weekend.

The only other driver that showed as much promise as JV was the late Gregg Moore, whom I though would have done exceedingly well in F1, and IMPO JV was even better from what he showed us.

Pretty sure he was beaten by Hill....

And I think multiple drivers were better than him in 97.

I think it's too much of a cop out to declare his performance just fell off a cliff after 97.

Yep the only thing that happened was that he no longer had access to the out and out fastest car in F1, all the assumptions that were made about JV got put to bed after multiple defeats to teammates.

pokerman wrote:Yep the only thing that happened was that he no longer had access to the out and out fastest car in F1, all the assumptions that were made about JV got put to bed after multiple defeats to teammates.

Newsflash. To win the WDC you need the best car.

Blinky McSquinty wrote:

pokerman wrote:Yep the only thing that happened was that he no longer had access to the out and out fastest car in F1, all the assumptions that were made about JV got put to bed after multiple defeats to teammates.

Newsflash. To win the WDC you need the best car.

You know that's not really true?

mikeyg123 wrote:

Blinky McSquinty wrote:

pokerman wrote:Yep the only thing that happened was that he no longer had access to the out and out fastest car in F1, all the assumptions that were made about JV got put to bed after multiple defeats to teammates.

Newsflash. To win the WDC you need the best car.

You know that's not really true?

Yeah I think it's a bit of a myth that you need the best car to win the WDC.

Definitely 1986 & maybe 1991 are the ones that immediately come to mind.

Jezza13 wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

Blinky McSquinty wrote:

pokerman wrote:Yep the only thing that happened was that he no longer had access to the out and out fastest car in F1, all the assumptions that were made about JV got put to bed after multiple defeats to teammates.

Newsflash. To win the WDC you need the best car.

You know that's not really true?

Yeah I think it's a bit of a myth that you need the best car to win the WDC.

Definitely 1986 & maybe 1991 are the ones that immediately come to mind.

There's been plenty. Thing is if a car wins the WDC it's going to look like the fastest regardless.

Blinky McSquinty wrote:

pokerman wrote:Yep the only thing that happened was that he no longer had access to the out and out fastest car in F1, all the assumptions that were made about JV got put to bed after multiple defeats to teammates.

Newsflash. To win the WDC you need the best car.

Maybe, but to beat your teammate you don't... which has been the focus of this discussion.

Jezza13 wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

Blinky McSquinty wrote:

pokerman wrote:Yep the only thing that happened was that he no longer had access to the out and out fastest car in F1, all the assumptions that were made about JV got put to bed after multiple defeats to teammates.

Newsflash. To win the WDC you need the best car.

You know that's not really true?

Yeah I think it's a bit of a myth that you need the best car to win the WDC.

Definitely 1986 & maybe 1991 are the ones that immediately come to mind.

I agree that in 1986 the McLaren package wasn't the best. But I dare say they did have the slightly better one in 1991. 139 points versus 125 and especially Senna finishing the season more than 2 victories worth of points ahead of Mansell, plead in favour of the McLaren, even if you consider it to have been Senna's car more than the Williams was Mansell's.

I have to admit that I have always thought that if Williams had stuck with Boutsen instead of Mansell, Thierry might have aided development more than Mansell did, and might potentially have ended up being a double world champion. Honesty commands I add that Thierry himself doesn't agree with my point of view. (But what does he know about F1? )

For 1986 it is the tyre that makes me a little bit cautious, especially for that final, decisive race. But Prost had a puncture and had to chase hard, while Piquet's tyre change was a very late precaution. While Rosberg's tyre delamination may have been due to his 'hare tactic' in favour of Prost, Mansell didn't particularly have to push, and didn't if memory serves.

Fiki wrote:

Jezza13 wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

Blinky McSquinty wrote:

pokerman wrote:Yep the only thing that happened was that he no longer had access to the out and out fastest car in F1, all the assumptions that were made about JV got put to bed after multiple defeats to teammates.

Newsflash. To win the WDC you need the best car.

You know that's not really true?

Yeah I think it's a bit of a myth that you need the best car to win the WDC.

Definitely 1986 & maybe 1991 are the ones that immediately come to mind.

I agree that in 1986 the McLaren package wasn't the best. But I dare say they did have the slightly better one in 1991. 139 points versus 125 and especially Senna finishing the season more than 2 victories worth of points ahead of Mansell, plead in favour of the McLaren, even if you consider it to have been Senna's car more than the Williams was Mansell's.

I have to admit that I have always thought that if Williams had stuck with Boutsen instead of Mansell, Thierry might have aided development more than Mansell did, and might potentially have ended up being a double world champion. Honesty commands I add that Thierry himself doesn't agree with my point of view. (But what does he know about F1? )

For 1986 it is the tyre that makes me a little bit cautious, especially for that final, decisive race. But Prost had a puncture and had to chase hard, while Piquet's tyre change was a very late precaution. While Rosberg's tyre delamination may have been due to his 'hare tactic' in favour of Prost, Mansell didn't particularly have to push, and didn't if memory serves.

In 1991 Mclaren won the championship by winning the first 4 races. After Monaco Macca were leading with 50 pts, while Williams were 3rd behind Ferrari on just 12 pts.

In the remaining 12 races Williams outscored McLaren 113 pts to 89, scoring 7 wins to 3. On that basis I think it'd be reasonable to suggest the Williams was the best car overall in 91.

Keeping Boutsen over Mansell might have aided in pre season development but I don't think, as good as I think Boutsen was, his driving was on the same level as Mansell's.

Your memory is spot on Fiki. Mansell drove a very conservative race in Adelaide in 86. While the tyre issues were strange, but only really among the top runners if I remember correctly, Piquet's precautionary stop baffled me. That effectively lost him the championship & I think they found no issues at all with the set they changed. They would've lasted the race with no dramas.

Blinky McSquinty wrote:

pokerman wrote:Yep the only thing that happened was that he no longer had access to the out and out fastest car in F1, all the assumptions that were made about JV got put to bed after multiple defeats to teammates.

Newsflash. To win the WDC you need the best car.

Not true it's not always been won by the best car and that's not the point I was making anyway JV won in a dominant car not merely by just having the best car.

Jezza13 wrote:

Fiki wrote:

Jezza13 wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

Blinky McSquinty wrote: Newsflash. To win the WDC you need the best car.

You know that's not really true?

Yeah I think it's a bit of a myth that you need the best car to win the WDC.

Definitely 1986 & maybe 1991 are the ones that immediately come to mind.

I agree that in 1986 the McLaren package wasn't the best. But I dare say they did have the slightly better one in 1991. 139 points versus 125 and especially Senna finishing the season more than 2 victories worth of points ahead of Mansell, plead in favour of the McLaren, even if you consider it to have been Senna's car more than the Williams was Mansell's.

I have to admit that I have always thought that if Williams had stuck with Boutsen instead of Mansell, Thierry might have aided development more than Mansell did, and might potentially have ended up being a double world champion. Honesty commands I add that Thierry himself doesn't agree with my point of view. (But what does he know about F1? )

For 1986 it is the tyre that makes me a little bit cautious, especially for that final, decisive race. But Prost had a puncture and had to chase hard, while Piquet's tyre change was a very late precaution. While Rosberg's tyre delamination may have been due to his 'hare tactic' in favour of Prost, Mansell didn't particularly have to push, and didn't if memory serves.

In 1991 Mclaren won the championship by winning the first 4 races. After Monaco Macca were leading with 50 pts, while Williams were 3rd behind Ferrari on just 12 pts.

In the remaining 12 races Williams outscored McLaren 113 pts to 89, scoring 7 wins to 3. On that basis I think it'd be reasonable to suggest the Williams was the best car overall in 91.

Keeping Boutsen over Mansell might have aided in pre season development but I don't think, as good as I think Boutsen was, his driving was on the same level as Mansell's.

Your memory is spot on Fiki. Mansell drove a very conservative race in Adelaide in 86. While the tyre issues were strange, but only really among the top runners if I remember correctly, Piquet's precautionary stop baffled me. That effectively lost him the championship & I think they found no issues at all with the set they changed. They would've lasted the race with no dramas.

Piquet has always said he doesn't regret that change. Rosberg suffered tyre failure in his McLaren, too, not just Mansell (although he was the most spectacular!) and Prost had suffered a puncture on lap 32. I think Williams felt the risk was too high and since Prost had already changed his tyres due to his earlier puncture McLaren decided they didn't need to. Williams erred on the side of caution. Afterwards, it turned out that Piquet's tyres were fine (he tended to be gentler on his tyres than Mansell) but to his credit Piquet always publicly fully supported the team's decision.

Goodyear had initially told the teams that the tyres would last the race distance and in those days pit stops weren't mandatory so most were planning not to stop. But Thierry Boutsen retired a few laps before Mansell's blow out and when Goodyear inspected the tyres they found they were on the limit, which they passed onto the other teams. In an interview with Peter Windsor he said the team were about to bring Mansell in for a precautionary stop (he had plenty of time in hand and his title chances would have been safe) when his tyre blew.

1986 was a pretty fascinating battle. If that tyre blowout in Adelaide had not happened, then the Williams drivers would have had almost identical results for the entire season and the only thing splitting them would have been Mansell getting 5th in Detroit vs Piquet's 7th place at Monaco. But they would have had exactly the same number of 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th place finishes throughout the year. They even both got the same number of poles! Just about the only stat they varied on was Piquet getting 7 fastest laps to Mansell's 4. Prost drove an excellent season but it's a textbook example of how two strong drivers can actually damage a team's chances of securing the WDC for one of their drivers as the Williams was clearly the better car and they crushed McLaren in the WCC.

you guys seem to have a good recollection regarding what happened to Bourdais. What is the consensus regarding Zanardi's formula 1 issues? It seems like back then Williams was a mess and not fast, Ralf was sort of the favored driver in the team and Alex really struggled with not being able to drive the car as "hard" as the indycar. I know there was issues with brakes. where they were too touchy and he liked much more "feel" and feedback, and they even tried steel brakes to see if is would help, but they were far more heavy and effected other aspects of the car. I also seem to remember that he didn't like that he couldn't seem to make the car do what he wanted it to do, there was a fine like between driving it hard and going too far and just throwing it away, perhaps part of this was the grooved tires as well?

I know that some F1 elitists feel that Alex was just a poor driver and he only won in indycar/CART due to the lack of talent in that series (which was as deep as indycar had ever been, so this argument doesnt work) and also because he was on a lead team, with best engine (although over half the other teams were in Honda Reynards and when you compare this to F1 and say a Hamilton being in the AMG, which is far more dominant than any other car over the past few years, then this argument falls on its face as well). Alex was my favorite driver of all time, with Senna and Alonso also being in top 3 (Senna was when I was much younger and I wasn't as passionate and knowledgeable about the sport back then). I guess I like passionate drivers? One thing I have learned about racing, since I started racing a fairly high level of karting, is that how "hard" you drive, doesn't always equate to speed, but these guys somehow made it work in their given era's.

rodH wrote:you guys seem to have a good recollection regarding what happened to Bourdais. What is the consensus regarding Zanardi's formula 1 issues? It seems like back then Williams was a mess and not fast, Ralf was sort of the favored driver in the team and Alex really struggled with not being able to drive the car as "hard" as the indycar. I know there was issues with brakes. where they were too touchy and he liked much more "feel" and feedback, and they even tried steel brakes to see if is would help, but they were far more heavy and effected other aspects of the car. I also seem to remember that he didn't like that he couldn't seem to make the car do what he wanted it to do, there was a fine like between driving it hard and going too far and just throwing it away, perhaps part of this was the grooved tires as well?

I know that some F1 elitists feel that Alex was just a poor driver and he only won in indycar/CART due to the lack of talent in that series (which was as deep as indycar had ever been, so this argument doesnt work) and also because he was on a lead team, with best engine (although over half the other teams were in Honda Reynards and when you compare this to F1 and say a Hamilton being in the AMG, which is far more dominant than any other car over the past few years, then this argument falls on its face as well). Alex was my favorite driver of all time, with Senna and Alonso also being in top 3 (Senna was when I was much younger and I wasn't as passionate and knowledgeable about the sport back then). I guess I like passionate drivers? One thing I have learned about racing, since I started racing a fairly high level of karting, is that how "hard" you drive, doesn't always equate to speed, but these guys somehow made it work in their given era's.

The bottom line is that both Bourdais and Zanardi lost to their F1 teammates.

Jezza13 wrote:

Fiki wrote:

Jezza13 wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

Blinky McSquinty wrote:
Newsflash. To win the WDC you need the best car.

You know that's not really true?

Yeah I think it's a bit of a myth that you need the best car to win the WDC.

Definitely 1986 & maybe 1991 are the ones that immediately come to mind.

I agree that in 1986 the McLaren package wasn't the best. But I dare say they did have the slightly better one in 1991. 139 points versus 125 and especially Senna finishing the season more than 2 victories worth of points ahead of Mansell, plead in favour of the McLaren, even if you consider it to have been Senna's car more than the Williams was Mansell's.

I have to admit that I have always thought that if Williams had stuck with Boutsen instead of Mansell, Thierry might have aided development more than Mansell did, and might potentially have ended up being a double world champion. Honesty commands I add that Thierry himself doesn't agree with my point of view. (But what does he know about F1? )

For 1986 it is the tyre that makes me a little bit cautious, especially for that final, decisive race. But Prost had a puncture and had to chase hard, while Piquet's tyre change was a very late precaution. While Rosberg's tyre delamination may have been due to his 'hare tactic' in favour of Prost, Mansell didn't particularly have to push, and didn't if memory serves.

In 1991 Mclaren won the championship by winning the first 4 races. After Monaco Macca were leading with 50 pts, while Williams were 3rd behind Ferrari on just 12 pts.

In the remaining 12 races Williams outscored McLaren 113 pts to 89, scoring 7 wins to 3. On that basis I think it'd be reasonable to suggest the Williams was the best car overall in 91.

Keeping Boutsen over Mansell might have aided in pre season development but I don't think, as good as I think Boutsen was, his driving was on the same level as Mansell's.

Your memory is spot on Fiki. Mansell drove a very conservative race in Adelaide in 86. While the tyre issues were strange, but only really among the top runners if I remember correctly, Piquet's precautionary stop baffled me. That effectively lost him the championship & I think they found no issues at all with the set they changed. They would've lasted the race with no dramas.

I don't believe a championship is won by winning the first 4 races. I look more to the continuing development of the Williams car into the superior car it was to become in 1992 and '93. This is why I believe retaining Boutsen rather than working in Mansell would have been advantageous to them. I clearly remember a newspaper report relating how Patrese went to see Thierry and thanked him for setting them up with such a good car already.
I believe I read a few years ago it was a sponsor who insisted Williams get Mansell back (sponsor's privilege I suppose), but I also know there was some friction between Head and Boutsen. Many people forget Boutsen is a qualified engineer and knew what he was talking about. Pre-season development is one thing, but remember that during 1989 Patrese was switched back to the FW12, while Boutsen insisted on developing the eventually race-winning 13. Isn't it odd that one driver gets all the credit for 'work ethic', while another gets none?

Anyway, back to the topic!

Fiki wrote:

Jezza13 wrote:

Fiki wrote:

Jezza13 wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote: You know that's not really true?

Yeah I think it's a bit of a myth that you need the best car to win the WDC.

Definitely 1986 & maybe 1991 are the ones that immediately come to mind.

I agree that in 1986 the McLaren package wasn't the best. But I dare say they did have the slightly better one in 1991. 139 points versus 125 and especially Senna finishing the season more than 2 victories worth of points ahead of Mansell, plead in favour of the McLaren, even if you consider it to have been Senna's car more than the Williams was Mansell's.

I have to admit that I have always thought that if Williams had stuck with Boutsen instead of Mansell, Thierry might have aided development more than Mansell did, and might potentially have ended up being a double world champion. Honesty commands I add that Thierry himself doesn't agree with my point of view. (But what does he know about F1? )

For 1986 it is the tyre that makes me a little bit cautious, especially for that final, decisive race. But Prost had a puncture and had to chase hard, while Piquet's tyre change was a very late precaution. While Rosberg's tyre delamination may have been due to his 'hare tactic' in favour of Prost, Mansell didn't particularly have to push, and didn't if memory serves.

In 1991 Mclaren won the championship by winning the first 4 races. After Monaco Macca were leading with 50 pts, while Williams were 3rd behind Ferrari on just 12 pts.

In the remaining 12 races Williams outscored McLaren 113 pts to 89, scoring 7 wins to 3. On that basis I think it'd be reasonable to suggest the Williams was the best car overall in 91.

Keeping Boutsen over Mansell might have aided in pre season development but I don't think, as good as I think Boutsen was, his driving was on the same level as Mansell's.

Your memory is spot on Fiki. Mansell drove a very conservative race in Adelaide in 86. While the tyre issues were strange, but only really among the top runners if I remember correctly, Piquet's precautionary stop baffled me. That effectively lost him the championship & I think they found no issues at all with the set they changed. They would've lasted the race with no dramas.

I don't believe a championship is won by winning the first 4 races. I look more to the continuing development of the Williams car into the superior car it was to become in 1992 and '93. This is why I believe retaining Boutsen rather than working in Mansell would have been advantageous to them. I clearly remember a newspaper report relating how Patrese went to see Thierry and thanked him for setting them up with such a good car already.
I believe I read a few years ago it was a sponsor who insisted Williams get Mansell back (sponsor's privilege I suppose), but I also know there was some friction between Head and Boutsen. Many people forget Boutsen is a qualified engineer and knew what he was talking about. Pre-season development is one thing, but remember that during 1989 Patrese was switched back to the FW12, while Boutsen insisted on developing the eventually race-winning 13. Isn't it odd that one driver gets all the credit for 'work ethic', while another gets none?

Anyway, back to the topic!

yes, in those days a technically-experienced driver could influence a car's development a lot more than they are able to today and a strong driver in that regard was worth his weight in gold

pokerman wrote:

rodH wrote:you guys seem to have a good recollection regarding what happened to Bourdais. What is the consensus regarding Zanardi's formula 1 issues? It seems like back then Williams was a mess and not fast, Ralf was sort of the favored driver in the team and Alex really struggled with not being able to drive the car as "hard" as the indycar. I know there was issues with brakes. where they were too touchy and he liked much more "feel" and feedback, and they even tried steel brakes to see if is would help, but they were far more heavy and effected other aspects of the car. I also seem to remember that he didn't like that he couldn't seem to make the car do what he wanted it to do, there was a fine like between driving it hard and going too far and just throwing it away, perhaps part of this was the grooved tires as well?

I know that some F1 elitists feel that Alex was just a poor driver and he only won in indycar/CART due to the lack of talent in that series (which was as deep as indycar had ever been, so this argument doesnt work) and also because he was on a lead team, with best engine (although over half the other teams were in Honda Reynards and when you compare this to F1 and say a Hamilton being in the AMG, which is far more dominant than any other car over the past few years, then this argument falls on its face as well). Alex was my favorite driver of all time, with Senna and Alonso also being in top 3 (Senna was when I was much younger and I wasn't as passionate and knowledgeable about the sport back then). I guess I like passionate drivers? One thing I have learned about racing, since I started racing a fairly high level of karting, is that how "hard" you drive, doesn't always equate to speed, but these guys somehow made it work in their given era's.

The bottom line is that both Bourdais and Zanardi lost to their F1 teammates.

LOL, I was looking for a little more detailed information, but thanks for the insight and summary.

Zoue wrote:

Fiki wrote:

Jezza13 wrote:

Fiki wrote:

Jezza13 wrote: [

Yeah I think it's a bit of a myth that you need the best car to win the WDC.

Definitely 1986 & maybe 1991 are the ones that immediately come to mind.

I agree that in 1986 the McLaren package wasn't the best. But I dare say they did have the slightly better one in 1991. 139 points versus 125 and especially Senna finishing the season more than 2 victories worth of points ahead of Mansell, plead in favour of the McLaren, even if you consider it to have been Senna's car more than the Williams was Mansell's.

I have to admit that I have always thought that if Williams had stuck with Boutsen instead of Mansell, Thierry might have aided development more than Mansell did, and might potentially have ended up being a double world champion. Honesty commands I add that Thierry himself doesn't agree with my point of view. (But what does he know about F1? )

For 1986 it is the tyre that makes me a little bit cautious, especially for that final, decisive race. But Prost had a puncture and had to chase hard, while Piquet's tyre change was a very late precaution. While Rosberg's tyre delamination may have been due to his 'hare tactic' in favour of Prost, Mansell didn't particularly have to push, and didn't if memory serves.

In 1991 Mclaren won the championship by winning the first 4 races. After Monaco Macca were leading with 50 pts, while Williams were 3rd behind Ferrari on just 12 pts.

In the remaining 12 races Williams outscored McLaren 113 pts to 89, scoring 7 wins to 3. On that basis I think it'd be reasonable to suggest the Williams was the best car overall in 91.

Keeping Boutsen over Mansell might have aided in pre season development but I don't think, as good as I think Boutsen was, his driving was on the same level as Mansell's.

Your memory is spot on Fiki. Mansell drove a very conservative race in Adelaide in 86. While the tyre issues were strange, but only really among the top runners if I remember correctly, Piquet's precautionary stop baffled me. That effectively lost him the championship & I think they found no issues at all with the set they changed. They would've lasted the race with no dramas.

I don't believe a championship is won by winning the first 4 races. I look more to the continuing development of the Williams car into the superior car it was to become in 1992 and '93. This is why I believe retaining Boutsen rather than working in Mansell would have been advantageous to them. I clearly remember a newspaper report relating how Patrese went to see Thierry and thanked him for setting them up with such a good car already.
I believe I read a few years ago it was a sponsor who insisted Williams get Mansell back (sponsor's privilege I suppose), but I also know there was some friction between Head and Boutsen. Many people forget Boutsen is a qualified engineer and knew what he was talking about. Pre-season development is one thing, but remember that during 1989 Patrese was switched back to the FW12, while Boutsen insisted on developing the eventually race-winning 13. Isn't it odd that one driver gets all the credit for 'work ethic', while another gets none?

Anyway, back to the topic!

yes, in those days a technically-experienced driver could influence a car's development a lot more than they are able to today and a strong driver in that regard was worth his weight in gold

If his views were taken seriously, yes. I recall Boutsen running tests with the Ford turbo engine in 1987. He came away thinking that with the proper development, Ford would be ready for the new restrictions for 1988. After the promise shown by Benetton-Ford in '87, I wasn't alone in feeling there would be three teams fighting it out in '88. But Ford went atmospheric instead and a chance to rival with McLaren was gone.

Quite why Williams never took him as seriously as they should have, I don't know. "Not gelling with the team" is such a non-descript term.

Ah well...