planetf1.com

It is currently Tue Jan 23, 2018 1:56 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Oct 15, 2017 8:53 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 12580
Exediron wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
I thin it happens a lot more than people think - Ok maybe not recently because of Merc and Red Bull, but I think people always make an assumption that the car that gets the best results is the best car.

The car that takes the championships is very often going to be seen as the best car just because it is the car that took the championships.

I agree that it happens more than people think, especially if they think it never happens. For what it's worth, here is my own opinion on modern F1 cars (since 1990, to pick an arbitrary cutoff)

2016-2010 the best car won all these years
(2009) somewhat controversially, I think the Red Bull may actually have been the best car over the course of the whole year
(2008) as mentioned above, I believe the Ferrari was the best car
2007-2006 the best car won, in my opinion
(2005) this depends on your definition of best - the quickest car did not win
2004 the best car won
(2003) I think there's a good argument that Michael's car was not the best this year, and he made the difference
2002-1996 the best car won every one of these years
(1995) the Benetton was not the best car, and possibly not even second best
(1994) less clear cut to me - the Benetton may have been the best car
1993-1992 the best car definitely won
(1991) I think the Williams may have been better, but really more a case of equal cars
(1990) there's reason to think the Ferrari might have been the better car, and should have won the championship

So out of 27 years, that's 2 where I think the best car definitely did not win the WDC, and another 6 where I can see a case for the best car not winning.

Note that as it stands now, I would put 2017 in the orange category. If Ferrari wins a majority of the remaining races, I might even see putting it in the red.


I would say out of those 91, 03 and 05 were a case of one car having a definite driver advantage that gave it an edge.

If Ralf and Michael looked equal which they did through most of 2003 then I think there is a good chance that is down to the car.

I would put -

09
08
05
03
01
95
91
86
83
82
81

as times from the last 40 years that the best car did not win the championship.

Looking at that I guess your 20% estimate is a pretty good one! I just have it more around 25%


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 15, 2017 1:14 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2003 10:09 pm
Posts: 8774
Exediron wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
I thin it happens a lot more than people think - Ok maybe not recently because of Merc and Red Bull, but I think people always make an assumption that the car that gets the best results is the best car.

The car that takes the championships is very often going to be seen as the best car just because it is the car that took the championships.

I agree that it happens more than people think, especially if they think it never happens. For what it's worth, here is my own opinion on modern F1 cars (since 1990, to pick an arbitrary cutoff)

2016-2010 the best car won all these years
(2009) somewhat controversially, I think the Red Bull may actually have been the best car over the course of the whole year
(2008) as mentioned above, I believe the Ferrari was the best car
2007-2006 the best car won, in my opinion
(2005) this depends on your definition of best - the quickest car did not win
2004 the best car won
(2003) I think there's a good argument that Michael's car was not the best this year, and he made the difference
2002-1996 the best car won every one of these years
(1995) the Benetton was not the best car, and possibly not even second best
(1994) less clear cut to me - the Benetton may have been the best car
1993-1992 the best car definitely won
(1991) I think the Williams may have been better, but really more a case of equal cars
(1990) there's reason to think the Ferrari might have been the better car, and should have won the championship

So out of 27 years, that's 2 where I think the best car definitely did not win the WDC, and another 6 where I can see a case for the best car not winning.

Note that as it stands now, I would put 2017 in the orange category. If Ferrari wins a majority of the remaining races, I might even see putting it in the red.


Surprised to actually agree with somebody on every single season.

The only minor differences I would suggest would be -
2000 - maybe the Mclaren was slightly superior for Hakkinen to be that close to MS. But not by much, Mika was at the very top of his game.

1991 - The Williams' reliability made it a lesser car than the Mclaren even though it was quicker. We no longer had best 11 results from 1990 on wards so its now much more important.

1990 - For me its clear, Ferrari had the better car. Prost went to being slower than Senna in 1988/1989 and only able to really beat him on merit 1-2 times per season and the others being when Senna had mechanical issues to beating him 5-6 times in one season on merit. This was after a rule change (cars were to be weighed WITH the driver from 1990 on). Going into 1990 that lost Prost about 0.2-0.3 per lap advantage he had on Senna through being lighter in the previous years.

_________________
http://www.racefan.co.uk


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 15, 2017 1:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2003 10:09 pm
Posts: 8774
mikeyg123 wrote:
I would say out of those 91, 03 and 05 were a case of one car having a definite driver advantage that gave it an edge.

If Ralf and Michael looked equal which they did through most of 2003 then I think there is a good chance that is down to the car.

I would put -

09
08
05
03
01
95
91
86
83
82
81

as times from the last 40 years that the best car did not win the championship.

Looking at that I guess your 20% estimate is a pretty good one! I just have it more around 25%


You could have put Senna/Schumacher in Kimi's place though, the 4 grid penalties and 2 mechanical DNFs made that title almost impossible to win. Though Alonso was the better driver, Kimi didn't really lose the title due to that.

The theme certainly is, slower cars fighting due to reliability.

2009 - Button was bulletproof the entirety of the year. Vettel did make a lot of errors but he did still have 2 mechanical DNFs

2003 - Montoya had 2 mechanical DNFs, Schumacher 0. Kimi had 1.

It's also the case in nearly all the other seasons listed too and as well as other near miss seasons like 1999 and 2012.

_________________
http://www.racefan.co.uk


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 15, 2017 1:59 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 12580
lamo wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
I would say out of those 91, 03 and 05 were a case of one car having a definite driver advantage that gave it an edge.

If Ralf and Michael looked equal which they did through most of 2003 then I think there is a good chance that is down to the car.

I would put -

09
08
05
03
01
95
91
86
83
82
81

as times from the last 40 years that the best car did not win the championship.

Looking at that I guess your 20% estimate is a pretty good one! I just have it more around 25%


You could have put Senna/Schumacher in Kimi's place though, the 4 grid penalties and 2 mechanical DNFs made that title almost impossible to win. Though Alonso was the better driver, Kimi didn't really lose the title due to that.

The theme certainly is, slower cars fighting due to reliability.

2009 - Button was bulletproof the entirety of the year. Vettel did make a lot of errors but he did still have 2 mechanical DNFs

2003 - Montoya had 2 mechanical DNFs, Schumacher 0. Kimi had 1.

It's also the case in nearly all the other seasons listed too and as well as other near miss seasons like 1999 and 2012.


I think the reason for that is that if a car is being driven faster it will always be viewed as the fastest car. One of the reasons it's almost impossible for a driver to win a championship in a car that is perceived inferior.

If you put some impossibly unbelievable driver in a Haas this season and he was on pole and winning most of the races we would all think the Haas is the fastest car.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 15, 2017 2:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 11:52 am
Posts: 1108
Banana Man wrote:

In terms of their Williams performances I'd go with:

Hill - He outperformed DC and JV quite comprehensively and they were both talented and motivated young drivers. Class of the field in 96. Schumi maybe have aced Barca but Hill was awesome in the wet in Monaco (Schumi crashed on lap 1) and Brazil (He lapped Schumi).
Montoya - Should have been 2003 WDC IMO. He was the only contender with a competitive team mate and the stewards stitched him up in Indy.

Putting the rest in order (for Williams remember)
Rosberg
Villeneuve
Bottas
Ralf
Webber
Coulthard
Button
Pastor
Heidfeld
Hulk
Frentzen
Massa
Stroll
Rubens


I'd have to agree with this post and list. Hill seems to be very undervalued/underrated here, he should of at least been a 2xWDC. He would of handled Rosberg fine in his peak, he faded later in his career but a much better overall racer, especially over the season and on his day.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 15, 2017 3:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2012 11:39 am
Posts: 1309
Probably Button, Montoya and JV.

_________________
Winner of the [Charging Hamilton Trophy] !
Winner of the [Dominant Hamilton Trophy] !

Lewis Hamilton 4 x WDC


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 15, 2017 3:29 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2014 4:11 pm
Posts: 1750
Banana Man wrote:
KingVoid wrote:
Who would you guys say is Williams' best ever driver, from 1996 onward?

I thought this question could be interesting because since 1996, Williams have had numerous very good drivers without a single tier 1 driver (IMO).

Damon Hill
David Coulthard
Jacques Villeneuve
Heinz-Harold Frentzen
Ralf Schumacher
Jenson Button
Juan Pablo Montoya
Mark Webber
Nick Heidfeld
Nico Rosberg
Rubens Barrichello
Nico Hulkenberg
Pastor Maldonado
Valtteri Bottas
Felipe Massa

That's the list of notable drivers who achieved at least a podium for Williams.


In terms of their Williams performances I'd go with:

Hill - He outperformed DC and JV quite comprehensively and they were both talented and motivated young drivers. Class of the field in 96. Schumi maybe have aced Barca but Hill was awesome in the wet in Monaco (Schumi crashed on lap 1) and Brazil (He lapped Schumi).
Montoya - Should have been 2003 WDC IMO. He was the only contender with a competitive team mate and the stewards stitched him up in Indy.

Putting the rest in order (for Williams remember)
Rosberg
Villeneuve
Bottas
Ralf
Webber
Coulthard
Button
Pastor
Heidfeld
Hulk
Frentzen
Massa
Stroll
Rubens


IMO Schumacher was the best driver of 96. 3 wins and 4 pole positions in that Ferrari was brilliant.

Hill had an excellent year - but definitely faded in the 2nd half of the season.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 15, 2017 4:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2012 5:02 am
Posts: 215
I think you have a different definition of tier 1 driver if a world champion who was able to demolish the entire field in an Arrows is not considered tier 1, aka Damon Hill. One does not have to have the track record of Schumacher or Senna to be considered top class.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 15, 2017 4:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2003 10:09 pm
Posts: 8774
mikeyg123 wrote:

I think the reason for that is that if a car is being driven faster it will always be viewed as the fastest car. One of the reasons it's almost impossible for a driver to win a championship in a car that is perceived inferior.

If you put some impossibly unbelievable driver in a Haas this season and he was on pole and winning most of the races we would all think the Haas is the fastest car.


Very true and a good point. Its only when you see decent/solid drivers like Fisichella in 2005 and Kovalainen in 2008 absolutely no where in a WDC winning car that it shows up. Most of the time you need hindsight to unravel how good each driver actually was/is. The Lotus' of 2012/13 start to look better and better the more you look into it for example.

The results of the 2nd driver is very important, just look at this year. If Bottas had had the form he has had the last 6-7 races all year. People would probably be talking about the Ferrari being the best car and only Hamiltons qualifying brilliance keeping him ahead. The same, the other way - if Kimi was behind Red Bull every race, then the narrative would be Vettels brilliance to drag that car into the title fight against the superior Mercedes.

_________________
http://www.racefan.co.uk


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 15, 2017 4:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 24098
Blinky McSquinty wrote:
As a Canadian I have to speak up for Villeneuve. Yes, his personality sucks, but as a driver for Williams 1996, 1997, and 1998 he was very impressive.

In his very first race he qualified on pole and would have won but for car reliability issues. Having won 4 races in his debut season, Villeneuve took the record for most wins in his first championship season. He also became the first driver in Formula One history to finish second in his first championship season. Both records were later equaled by Lewis Hamilton in 2007.

In his second year he was in a death match with Schumacher, and emerged WDC. The 1998 car had the flaccid Mecachrome engine, and his performance dropped drastically.

In 1999 he chased the money trail and left Williams, forever dooming him as an unpopular character and leaving a very short legacy of success.

But his first two years in Williams were spectacular.

In the out and out best car but history shows he wasn't a tier 1 driver.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place

Wins: Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: 2nd Canada 2015, 3rd Monza 2016, Hungary 2016 and Barcelona 2015


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 15, 2017 4:48 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 24098
Kev627 wrote:
I think Montoya and Villeneuve could have done much better than they did and stayed in F1 much longer but they didn't seem to have it in their heads.

They both started to take beatings so I think we saw the limit of what they could do, Montoya could have stayed in F1 however with Villeneuve he was no longer wanted.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place

Wins: Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: 2nd Canada 2015, 3rd Monza 2016, Hungary 2016 and Barcelona 2015


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 15, 2017 4:57 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 24098
Bigbazz wrote:
I think you have a different definition of tier 1 driver if a world champion who was able to demolish the entire field in an Arrows is not considered tier 1, aka Damon Hill. One does not have to have the track record of Schumacher or Senna to be considered top class.

I think that might have had something to do with the tyres as well?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place

Wins: Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: 2nd Canada 2015, 3rd Monza 2016, Hungary 2016 and Barcelona 2015


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 15, 2017 5:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 12580
pokerman wrote:
Bigbazz wrote:
I think you have a different definition of tier 1 driver if a world champion who was able to demolish the entire field in an Arrows is not considered tier 1, aka Damon Hill. One does not have to have the track record of Schumacher or Senna to be considered top class.

I think that might have had something to do with the tyres as well?


People always say that but plenty of other drivers were on the same tyres but didn't do anything exceptional.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 15, 2017 5:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 12580
Bigbazz wrote:
I think you have a different definition of tier 1 driver if a world champion who was able to demolish the entire field in an Arrows is not considered tier 1, aka Damon Hill. One does not have to have the track record of Schumacher or Senna to be considered top class.


Plenty of drivers have had exceptional drives that wouldn't be considered tier 1.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 15, 2017 6:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2011 8:48 pm
Posts: 2563
Location: UK
mikeyg123 wrote:
Bigbazz wrote:
I think you have a different definition of tier 1 driver if a world champion who was able to demolish the entire field in an Arrows is not considered tier 1, aka Damon Hill. One does not have to have the track record of Schumacher or Senna to be considered top class.


Plenty of drivers have had exceptional drives that wouldn't be considered tier 1.

Maldonado comes to mind...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 15, 2017 10:10 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2012 2:29 am
Posts: 1907
Hill was tier 1, remember he did well against Prost in 1993, 69 vs 99 pts and winning 3 vs 7 against his teammate with Senna winning 5 and Schumacher 1 which shows how competitively tough it was that year. As for the 1997 Hungarian grand Prix he qualified third in that Arrows behind Schumacher and Villeneuve and ahead of the other Ferrari of Irvine and Williams of Frentzen as well the McLarens of Hakkinen and Coulthard as well as a whole 2s ahead of his teammate Diniz !

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1997_Hu ... Grand_Prix

Damon Hill was like his father, pure class and it is a bit insulting to label him as tier 2 or compare him to crashonaldo.

_________________
Kimi: "Come on, get the McLaren out of the way!”


Last edited by mas on Sun Oct 15, 2017 10:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 15, 2017 10:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 12580
mas wrote:
Hill was tier 1, remember he did well against Prost in 1993, 69 vs 99 pts and winning 3 vs 7 against his teammate. As for the 1997 Hungarian grand Prix he qualified third in that Arrows behind Schumacher and Villeneuve and ahead of the other Ferrari of Irvine and Williams of Frentzen as well the McLarens of Hakkinen and Coulthard as well as a whole 2s ahead of his teammate Diniz !

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1997_Hu ... Grand_Prix

Damon Hill was like his father, pure class and it is a bit insulting to label him as tier 2.


I seem to rate Hill higher than most but the problem with putting him tier 1 is what tier does that make Scumacher?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 15, 2017 10:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2012 2:29 am
Posts: 1907
Tier 1 also but I would not mind Hill being classed as a tier 1.5 like say a Button as he could beat the best on his day like Jenson.

_________________
Kimi: "Come on, get the McLaren out of the way!”


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 15, 2017 10:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 4279
mas wrote:
Tier 1 also but I would not mind Hill being classed as a tier 1.5 like say a Button as he could beat the best on his day like Jenson.

That, for me, is the most reasonable view of Hill. He wasn't just an ordinary driver. Clearly he had talent beyond that but when teamed with the likes of Senna and Prost, it was obvious that he wasn't on their level.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 15, 2017 11:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 24098
mikeyg123 wrote:
mas wrote:
Hill was tier 1, remember he did well against Prost in 1993, 69 vs 99 pts and winning 3 vs 7 against his teammate. As for the 1997 Hungarian grand Prix he qualified third in that Arrows behind Schumacher and Villeneuve and ahead of the other Ferrari of Irvine and Williams of Frentzen as well the McLarens of Hakkinen and Coulthard as well as a whole 2s ahead of his teammate Diniz !

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1997_Hu ... Grand_Prix

Damon Hill was like his father, pure class and it is a bit insulting to label him as tier 2.


I seem to rate Hill higher than most but the problem with putting him tier 1 is what tier does that make Scumacher?

Indeed I think tier 1 is that you don't look second best to the drivers of that time, he was second best to Senna, Prost didn't really have to break sweet to win the title in 1993, whilst Schumacher often was able to be competitive against Hill in an inferior car.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place

Wins: Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: 2nd Canada 2015, 3rd Monza 2016, Hungary 2016 and Barcelona 2015


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 16, 2017 6:44 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 11:24 am
Posts: 2123
pokerman wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
mas wrote:
Hill was tier 1, remember he did well against Prost in 1993, 69 vs 99 pts and winning 3 vs 7 against his teammate. As for the 1997 Hungarian grand Prix he qualified third in that Arrows behind Schumacher and Villeneuve and ahead of the other Ferrari of Irvine and Williams of Frentzen as well the McLarens of Hakkinen and Coulthard as well as a whole 2s ahead of his teammate Diniz !

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1997_Hu ... Grand_Prix

Damon Hill was like his father, pure class and it is a bit insulting to label him as tier 2.


I seem to rate Hill higher than most but the problem with putting him tier 1 is what tier does that make Scumacher?

Indeed I think tier 1 is that you don't look second best to the drivers of that time, he was second best to Senna, Prost didn't really have to break sweet to win the title in 1993, whilst Schumacher often was able to be competitive against Hill in an inferior car.


I don't think there were any races in 1996 when MS was able to match the race pace of Hill. I think the closest he came, aside from Spain, was Suzuka when Hill was basically cruising to the flag to pick up his WDC. He nicked a few poles but that's about it.

_________________
I remember when this website was all fields.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 16, 2017 8:43 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 6914
Location: Belgium
sandman1347 wrote:
mas wrote:
Tier 1 also but I would not mind Hill being classed as a tier 1.5 like say a Button as he could beat the best on his day like Jenson.

That, for me, is the most reasonable view of Hill. He wasn't just an ordinary driver. Clearly he had talent beyond that but when teamed with the likes of Senna and Prost, it was obvious that he wasn't on their level.
I feel it is only fair to bear in mind the role the team plays, in what we get to see of the drivers. It was only after Prost declined to have Senna in the same team again, and after Senna died, that Hill was able to show what he could do.

If a team doesn't believe in you, with or without good reason, you're not going anywhere. Seeing how Boutsen was treated by Williams made that very clear to me.

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 16, 2017 1:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 5:38 pm
Posts: 1609
Location: Miami, Florida
bradtheboywonder wrote:
I know he had a rough trot in Williams, but I rate Zanardi as well. What he did in Champcar was legendary.


As amazing as Zanardi was in CART/ChampCar, "The Pass" was an illegal move that was incorrectly allowed to stand.
Yes it took testicular fortitude, and it was incredible how he didn't lose control once off the circuit, but anyone of us who watched that series religiously saw him make several dozen amazing passes, and that wasn't one of them.

_________________
HAMILTON :: VETTEL :: ROSBERG :: RAIKKONEN :: VERSTAPPEN :: SAINZ :: MASSA :: BOTTAS :: NASR
ALONSO :: BUTTON :: PEREZ :: RICCIARDO :: GROSJEAN :: KVYAT :: HULKENBERG :: MALDONADO
THE REST… THERE ARE FAR BETTER DRIVERS THAT SHOULD BE IN FORMULA 1


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 16, 2017 2:48 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 24098
Banana Man wrote:
pokerman wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
mas wrote:
Hill was tier 1, remember he did well against Prost in 1993, 69 vs 99 pts and winning 3 vs 7 against his teammate. As for the 1997 Hungarian grand Prix he qualified third in that Arrows behind Schumacher and Villeneuve and ahead of the other Ferrari of Irvine and Williams of Frentzen as well the McLarens of Hakkinen and Coulthard as well as a whole 2s ahead of his teammate Diniz !

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1997_Hu ... Grand_Prix

Damon Hill was like his father, pure class and it is a bit insulting to label him as tier 2.


I seem to rate Hill higher than most but the problem with putting him tier 1 is what tier does that make Scumacher?

Indeed I think tier 1 is that you don't look second best to the drivers of that time, he was second best to Senna, Prost didn't really have to break sweet to win the title in 1993, whilst Schumacher often was able to be competitive against Hill in an inferior car.

Well I would be referring more to 1995.

I don't think there were any races in 1996 when MS was able to match the race pace of Hill. I think the closest he came, aside from Spain, was Suzuka when Hill was basically cruising to the flag to pick up his WDC. He nicked a few poles but that's about it.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place

Wins: Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: 2nd Canada 2015, 3rd Monza 2016, Hungary 2016 and Barcelona 2015


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 16, 2017 2:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 24098
Fiki wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
mas wrote:
Tier 1 also but I would not mind Hill being classed as a tier 1.5 like say a Button as he could beat the best on his day like Jenson.

That, for me, is the most reasonable view of Hill. He wasn't just an ordinary driver. Clearly he had talent beyond that but when teamed with the likes of Senna and Prost, it was obvious that he wasn't on their level.
I feel it is only fair to bear in mind the role the team plays, in what we get to see of the drivers. It was only after Prost declined to have Senna in the same team again, and after Senna died, that Hill was able to show what he could do.

If a team doesn't believe in you, with or without good reason, you're not going anywhere. Seeing how Boutsen was treated by Williams made that very clear to me.

What he was able to do against rookie teammates instead of tier 1 drivers.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place

Wins: Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: 2nd Canada 2015, 3rd Monza 2016, Hungary 2016 and Barcelona 2015


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 16, 2017 3:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2009 12:23 pm
Posts: 239
Statistically William's best driver between 1996 and the present day is Jacques Villeneuve with 11 victories over two seasons and a World Drivers Championship. Damon also gained a world championship the year before Villeneuve but only gained 8 victories from 1996.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 16, 2017 3:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 5:38 pm
Posts: 1609
Location: Miami, Florida
Kev627 wrote:
I think Montoya and Villeneuve could have done much better than they did and stayed in F1 much longer but they didn't seem to have it in their heads.

JV on the one hand, shot himself in the foot in taking the money. On the other hand, he saw his dad die in an F1 car and one cannot dismiss the fact that he might've always had it in his mind that this is inherently dangerous so if someone offers him truckloads of cash to drive for them, he'd take it without batting an eye. Seemingly that's what he did.

With Montoya however, I've spoken to the man on several occasions (my son and his nephew used to race karts against one another) and his issues with F1 were not that he didn't have "IT". Not even close.

His greatest issue was the political nonsense and business that took precedence over the racing and Ron was focused more on those than racing in some facets and that's what made their relationship so strained and un-amicable. Montoya admitted to me at times he was a little too hot headed to be able to give the proper response and would either say something to further add to the tension or he'd just walk away which also didn't help things, but basically there were too many agendas fueling decisions for too many people and all he wanted to do was race and the racing was lacking a bit at times and that's what made it become boring to him as per a few interviews, but when you speak with him in person and he's just being himself, he gives the impression there was much more left for him to do in F1, but the opportunities at the time were too limited for him to want to waste his time waiting for them to open up for him, and so he left to race in Nascar.

Ironically, Nascar proved even more difficult and uninspiring for him than anything he had ever done before or since and his time there was rather forgetful as a whole. Back in open wheel cars, he's immediately relevant again and IMPO is proof positive his decision to leave F1 was a huge mistake. Had he stayed at McLaren for just one more freakin' year, he would certainly have challenge for the WDC, and possibly won it. While Alonso was beast at the time, I think Montoya at that stage was even better and he might have been the one to keep Lewis in check for at least a season, possibly 2.

_________________
HAMILTON :: VETTEL :: ROSBERG :: RAIKKONEN :: VERSTAPPEN :: SAINZ :: MASSA :: BOTTAS :: NASR
ALONSO :: BUTTON :: PEREZ :: RICCIARDO :: GROSJEAN :: KVYAT :: HULKENBERG :: MALDONADO
THE REST… THERE ARE FAR BETTER DRIVERS THAT SHOULD BE IN FORMULA 1


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 16, 2017 3:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2009 12:23 pm
Posts: 239
Thanks F1 MERCENARY.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 16, 2017 4:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 11:24 am
Posts: 2123
Kev627 wrote:
Statistically William's best driver between 1996 and the present day is Jacques Villeneuve with 11 victories over two seasons and a World Drivers Championship. Damon also gained a world championship the year before Villeneuve but only gained 8 victories from 1996.


If Hill was unfortunate not to win more races in 1996, JV was lucky to win many of those he did in 1997. Of his 7 victories (not 8 ) 4 came when a car in front of his had a technical problem (Silverstone, Hungary, Lux, Austria) and in Spain Panis was robbed by Irvine ignoring blue flags for 7 laps.

Basically after race 3 in Argentina, he was lucky to win anything.

_________________
I remember when this website was all fields.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 16, 2017 4:14 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 4279
F1 MERCENARY wrote:
Kev627 wrote:
I think Montoya and Villeneuve could have done much better than they did and stayed in F1 much longer but they didn't seem to have it in their heads.

JV on the one hand, shot himself in the foot in taking the money. On the other hand, he saw his dad die in an F1 car and one cannot dismiss the fact that he might've always had it in his mind that this is inherently dangerous so if someone offers him truckloads of cash to drive for them, he'd take it without batting an eye. Seemingly that's what he did.

With Montoya however, I've spoken to the man on several occasions (my son and his nephew used to race karts against one another) and his issues with F1 were not that he didn't have "IT". Not even close.

His greatest issue was the political nonsense and business that took precedence over the racing and Ron was focused more on those than racing in some facets and that's what made their relationship so strained and un-amicable. Montoya admitted to me at times he was a little too hot headed to be able to give the proper response and would either say something to further add to the tension or he'd just walk away which also didn't help things, but basically there were too many agendas fueling decisions for too many people and all he wanted to do was race and the racing was lacking a bit at times and that's what made it become boring to him as per a few interviews, but when you speak with him in person and he's just being himself, he gives the impression there was much more left for him to do in F1, but the opportunities at the time were too limited for him to want to waste his time waiting for them to open up for him, and so he left to race in Nascar.

Ironically, Nascar proved even more difficult and uninspiring for him than anything he had ever done before or since and his time there was rather forgetful as a whole. Back in open wheel cars, he's immediately relevant again and IMPO is proof positive his decision to leave F1 was a huge mistake. Had he stayed at McLaren for just one more freakin' year, he would certainly have challenge for the WDC, and possibly won it. While Alonso was beast at the time, I think Montoya at that stage was even better and he might have been the one to keep Lewis in check for at least a season, possibly 2.

Nah he was struggling to keep up with Raikkonen by his last season. Great story though (not being sarcastic).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 16, 2017 5:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 11:24 am
Posts: 2123
Second half of 2005 and into 2006 he started to get much closer to Kimi's pace. Supposedly Juan found the MP4-20 very hard to set up to start with because it was designed to suit Kimi's driving style.

_________________
I remember when this website was all fields.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 16, 2017 5:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 21114
Banana Man wrote:
Second half of 2005 and into 2006 he started to get much closer to Kimi's pace. Supposedly Juan found the MP4-20 very hard to set up to start with because it was designed to suit Kimi's driving style.

I think both drivers were quite picky. I think it was Fry who said that one season they had nine different front ends to cater for the two drivers' styles and sensitivities


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 16, 2017 5:48 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2003 10:09 pm
Posts: 8774
Banana Man wrote:
Kev627 wrote:
Statistically William's best driver between 1996 and the present day is Jacques Villeneuve with 11 victories over two seasons and a World Drivers Championship. Damon also gained a world championship the year before Villeneuve but only gained 8 victories from 1996.


If Hill was unfortunate not to win more races in 1996, JV was lucky to win many of those he did in 1997. Of his 7 victories (not 8 ) 4 came when a car in front of his had a technical problem (Silverstone, Hungary, Lux, Austria) and in Spain Panis was robbed by Irvine ignoring blue flags for 7 laps.

Basically after race 3 in Argentina, he was lucky to win anything.



Nice summary, JV had a lot of luck in 1997 that is for sure. Ironically he should have won the last race though but his wins on pure speed and merit were limited to say the least.

To the OP, statistically 8 wins in 16 is usually considered better than 11 from 33 too or the 50 odd he did in total for Williams, especially when the first driver beat the other driver in there only year together.

_________________
http://www.racefan.co.uk


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 16, 2017 6:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 6914
Location: Belgium
F1 MERCENARY wrote:
As amazing as Zanardi was in CART/ChampCar, "The Pass" was an illegal move that was incorrectly allowed to stand.
Slightly off-topic, but do you remember why it was allowed to stand? In those days, I was able to follow Indycar racing, and did so if able. Having seen Zanardi's huge crash up the Raidillon, I was delighted he was doing so well over there. But I couldn't understand why there was no reaction to this pass.

pokerman wrote:
Fiki wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
mas wrote:
Tier 1 also but I would not mind Hill being classed as a tier 1.5 like say a Button as he could beat the best on his day like Jenson.

That, for me, is the most reasonable view of Hill. He wasn't just an ordinary driver. Clearly he had talent beyond that but when teamed with the likes of Senna and Prost, it was obvious that he wasn't on their level.
I feel it is only fair to bear in mind the role the team plays, in what we get to see of the drivers. It was only after Prost declined to have Senna in the same team again, and after Senna died, that Hill was able to show what he could do.

If a team doesn't believe in you, with or without good reason, you're not going anywhere. Seeing how Boutsen was treated by Williams made that very clear to me.

What he was able to do against rookie teammates instead of tier 1 drivers.
I remember reading a comment by Jabby Crombac, at the time when Prost and Hill were team-mates. He had said/written: "Il y a beacoup de Prost dans ce garçon." I still agree with him, and I find it by far the finest compliment for him.

Going up against the best drivers of the era, I can understand why the team would treat Prost and Senna as number 1 drivers. But Williams did give him his chance, and after Senna's death, he really came into his own.

I'm not very comfortable with this idea of thinking of driver tiers, and less so when there's a need to use half-tiers. Call Hill tier 2 if you wish, I find 2 world titles pretty good going, even if you do have the best car under your bum.

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 16, 2017 7:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 4279
Fiki wrote:
F1 MERCENARY wrote:
As amazing as Zanardi was in CART/ChampCar, "The Pass" was an illegal move that was incorrectly allowed to stand.
Slightly off-topic, but do you remember why it was allowed to stand? In those days, I was able to follow Indycar racing, and did so if able. Having seen Zanardi's huge crash up the Raidillon, I was delighted he was doing so well over there. But I couldn't understand why there was no reaction to this pass.

pokerman wrote:
Fiki wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
mas wrote:
Tier 1 also but I would not mind Hill being classed as a tier 1.5 like say a Button as he could beat the best on his day like Jenson.

That, for me, is the most reasonable view of Hill. He wasn't just an ordinary driver. Clearly he had talent beyond that but when teamed with the likes of Senna and Prost, it was obvious that he wasn't on their level.
I feel it is only fair to bear in mind the role the team plays, in what we get to see of the drivers. It was only after Prost declined to have Senna in the same team again, and after Senna died, that Hill was able to show what he could do.

If a team doesn't believe in you, with or without good reason, you're not going anywhere. Seeing how Boutsen was treated by Williams made that very clear to me.

What he was able to do against rookie teammates instead of tier 1 drivers.
I remember reading a comment by Jabby Crombac, at the time when Prost and Hill were team-mates. He had said/written: "Il y a beacoup de Prost dans ce garçon." I still agree with him, and I find it by far the finest compliment for him.

Going up against the best drivers of the era, I can understand why the team would treat Prost and Senna as number 1 drivers. But Williams did give him his chance, and after Senna's death, he really came into his own.

I'm not very comfortable with this idea of thinking of driver tiers, and less so when there's a need to use half-tiers. Call Hill tier 2 if you wish, I find 2 world titles pretty good going, even if you do have the best car under your bum.

What about 1 world title? Lol, he only won it once (not sure if you're talking about the whole Schumacher debacle in 94').

Tier 2 is probably more appropriate to be honest. I'd say Rosberg is kind of a tier 1.5.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 16, 2017 7:59 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 12580
Banana Man wrote:
Kev627 wrote:
Statistically William's best driver between 1996 and the present day is Jacques Villeneuve with 11 victories over two seasons and a World Drivers Championship. Damon also gained a world championship the year before Villeneuve but only gained 8 victories from 1996.


If Hill was unfortunate not to win more races in 1996, JV was lucky to win many of those he did in 1997. Of his 7 victories (not 8 ) 4 came when a car in front of his had a technical problem (Silverstone, Hungary, Lux, Austria) and in Spain Panis was robbed by Irvine ignoring blue flags for 7 laps.

Basically after race 3 in Argentina, he was lucky to win anything.


Even Argentina had a lot of good fortune. His race pace was poor. Irvine or R.Schumacher never got near him anywhere else. His three closest challenges went out early on. Schumacher, Panis and Frentzen. I think any of them would have won the race had they continued.

Irvine never out races MSC and finished right behind Villenueve so I think Schumacher in particular would have definitely won.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 16, 2017 8:24 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 11:37 am
Posts: 177
F1 MERCENARY wrote:
Kev627 wrote:
I think Montoya and Villeneuve could have done much better than they did and stayed in F1 much longer but they didn't seem to have it in their heads.

JV on the one hand, shot himself in the foot in taking the money. On the other hand, he saw his dad die in an F1 car and one cannot dismiss the fact that he might've always had it in his mind that this is inherently dangerous so if someone offers him truckloads of cash to drive for them, he'd take it without batting an eye. Seemingly that's what he did.

With Montoya however, I've spoken to the man on several occasions (my son and his nephew used to race karts against one another) and his issues with F1 were not that he didn't have "IT". Not even close.

His greatest issue was the political nonsense and business that took precedence over the racing and Ron was focused more on those than racing in some facets and that's what made their relationship so strained and un-amicable. Montoya admitted to me at times he was a little too hot headed to be able to give the proper response and would either say something to further add to the tension or he'd just walk away which also didn't help things, but basically there were too many agendas fueling decisions for too many people and all he wanted to do was race and the racing was lacking a bit at times and that's what made it become boring to him as per a few interviews, but when you speak with him in person and he's just being himself, he gives the impression there was much more left for him to do in F1, but the opportunities at the time were too limited for him to want to waste his time waiting for them to open up for him, and so he left to race in Nascar.

Ironically, Nascar proved even more difficult and uninspiring for him than anything he had ever done before or since and his time there was rather forgetful as a whole. Back in open wheel cars, he's immediately relevant again and IMPO is proof positive his decision to leave F1 was a huge mistake. Had he stayed at McLaren for just one more freakin' year, he would certainly have challenge for the WDC, and possibly won it. While Alonso was beast at the time, I think Montoya at that stage was even better and he might have been the one to keep Lewis in check for at least a season, possibly 2.


I like your story, but to think that Montoya was better than Alonso or would be a match for Lewis is fanciful thinking at best. He could barely live with Raikkonen, forget Alonso. All his talk about European drivers being weak in the head, when he himself was really weak when it came to dealing with anything outside the car.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 16, 2017 10:44 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2014 4:11 pm
Posts: 1750
mikeyg123 wrote:
Banana Man wrote:
Kev627 wrote:
Statistically William's best driver between 1996 and the present day is Jacques Villeneuve with 11 victories over two seasons and a World Drivers Championship. Damon also gained a world championship the year before Villeneuve but only gained 8 victories from 1996.


If Hill was unfortunate not to win more races in 1996, JV was lucky to win many of those he did in 1997. Of his 7 victories (not 8 ) 4 came when a car in front of his had a technical problem (Silverstone, Hungary, Lux, Austria) and in Spain Panis was robbed by Irvine ignoring blue flags for 7 laps.

Basically after race 3 in Argentina, he was lucky to win anything.


Even Argentina had a lot of good fortune. His race pace was poor. Irvine or R.Schumacher never got near him anywhere else. His three closest challenges went out early on. Schumacher, Panis and Frentzen. I think any of them would have won the race had they continued.

Irvine never out races MSC and finished right behind Villenueve so I think Schumacher in particular would have definitely won.


I doubt he would have beaten the Bridgestone shod Panis.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 16, 2017 10:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2014 4:11 pm
Posts: 1750
Banana Man wrote:
Kev627 wrote:
Statistically William's best driver between 1996 and the present day is Jacques Villeneuve with 11 victories over two seasons and a World Drivers Championship. Damon also gained a world championship the year before Villeneuve but only gained 8 victories from 1996.


If Hill was unfortunate not to win more races in 1996, JV was lucky to win many of those he did in 1997. Of his 7 victories (not 8 ) 4 came when a car in front of his had a technical problem (Silverstone, Hungary, Lux, Austria) and in Spain Panis was robbed by Irvine ignoring blue flags for 7 laps.

Basically after race 3 in Argentina, he was lucky to win anything.



to be fair, in Silverstone he was leading originally but lost the lead due to a very long first pit stop.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 17, 2017 5:41 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 21114
A.J. wrote:
F1 MERCENARY wrote:
Kev627 wrote:
I think Montoya and Villeneuve could have done much better than they did and stayed in F1 much longer but they didn't seem to have it in their heads.

JV on the one hand, shot himself in the foot in taking the money. On the other hand, he saw his dad die in an F1 car and one cannot dismiss the fact that he might've always had it in his mind that this is inherently dangerous so if someone offers him truckloads of cash to drive for them, he'd take it without batting an eye. Seemingly that's what he did.

With Montoya however, I've spoken to the man on several occasions (my son and his nephew used to race karts against one another) and his issues with F1 were not that he didn't have "IT". Not even close.

His greatest issue was the political nonsense and business that took precedence over the racing and Ron was focused more on those than racing in some facets and that's what made their relationship so strained and un-amicable. Montoya admitted to me at times he was a little too hot headed to be able to give the proper response and would either say something to further add to the tension or he'd just walk away which also didn't help things, but basically there were too many agendas fueling decisions for too many people and all he wanted to do was race and the racing was lacking a bit at times and that's what made it become boring to him as per a few interviews, but when you speak with him in person and he's just being himself, he gives the impression there was much more left for him to do in F1, but the opportunities at the time were too limited for him to want to waste his time waiting for them to open up for him, and so he left to race in Nascar.

Ironically, Nascar proved even more difficult and uninspiring for him than anything he had ever done before or since and his time there was rather forgetful as a whole. Back in open wheel cars, he's immediately relevant again and IMPO is proof positive his decision to leave F1 was a huge mistake. Had he stayed at McLaren for just one more freakin' year, he would certainly have challenge for the WDC, and possibly won it. While Alonso was beast at the time, I think Montoya at that stage was even better and he might have been the one to keep Lewis in check for at least a season, possibly 2.


I like your story, but to think that Montoya was better than Alonso or would be a match for Lewis is fanciful thinking at best. He could barely live with Raikkonen, forget Alonso. All his talk about European drivers being weak in the head, when he himself was really weak when it came to dealing with anything outside the car.

Raikkonen was a beast on the Michelins, though. These were tyres you didn't have to worry about looking after and Kimi could just go out and do a series of qualifying laps all race long. He was a quick driver then by any standards. So Montoya being competitive against him means he probably was pretty quick, too


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Black_Flag_11, bonecrasher, Google Adsense [Bot] and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group