planetf1.com

Pokerman, I can't make sense of what you wrote there. Please make up your mind; was Hill stronger or weaker than Villeneuve? Or do you mean that Frentzen was weaker than Villeneuve? Frentzen, who took Jordan into contention in 1999?

I also don't understand what you're saying about the cars. Villeneuve may have won his title in a superior car. That is the normal state of affairs.
In his first year Hamilton had a car that was at least as good as the Ferrari. Without his team engaging in industrial espionage, it would have won the constructors' title.
In Hamilton's second year, he may have had a weaker team-mate, but again a car that was roughly the equal of the Ferrari, as is suggested by the tightness of the result for the drivers' title. And that time they were allowed to compete for the constructors' title. And to borrow a phrase from Jenson Button a few years later, the car in 2008 was "his".

I think Poker's point is fairly simple. The actual results between Hamilton and JV may have been quite similar in their first 2 years, but the level of performances required to achieve those results was not similar at all.

And I fully agree to this (although I think that the car-wise dominance of Williams fully vanished in the course of the 1997 season).

Just a note on the cross-teammate comparisons:
Alonso > D. Hill, agreed. But surely also Frentzen > Kovalainen, or?

By mentioning Alonso I was clearly talking about their respective rookie first seasons,

I've no idea what you are talking about with Button?

The whole "best prepared rookie" thing is hyperbole. The path that Hamilton took to F1 was extremely similar to most other drivers. He went from Formula Renault 2.0 to F3 to GP2. Nothing unusual there except for the fact that he won championships at every level. Villeneuve came up in the North American system and won in Indy before coming to F1. He had to adapt to the European tracks and system. I don't think either of them had some kind of advantage of being "the most prepared".

Hamilton did, in fact, best Alonso during his rookie season and he did it despite Alonso having #1 status for the first 5 races of the season. Alonso actually finished artificially close due to the way Hamilton's season came off the rails in the last 2 rounds.

The idea that Hamilton's results from his first two years are owed to the car to the same extent that JV's are is a joke. Did you watch both of them in their early days? The Williams in 96'-97' was every bit as dominant as the Mercedes from 2014-2016. That was a car that had no business losing and JV almost dropped the championship to MS in 97' despite the massive advantage the car gave him. In 96' Damon Hill comfortably beat JV in the same car. By comparison; McLaren and Ferrari were in close battles for the titles in 2007-2008 and Ferrari were the team with the marginally faster car. Hamilton beat Alonso in his rookie season in the same car and then won the title in 2008.

The impact of the car for JV was MUCH greater. Without having a dominant car, he would never have won the championship. He in fact never even won another race after those two years. Hamilton's car gave him the opportunity to fight for the championship but it did not give him an advantage in that fight.

Which is why I don't understand you saying Villeneuve had a weaker team-mate. Hill wasn't weaker.

Which is why I don't understand you saying Villeneuve had a weaker team-mate. Hill wasn't weaker. If you meant Frentzen in that part of your post, I already explained that Frentzen wasn't weaker. Obviously I can only rely on what I read about his relationship with Williams/Head, but it appears that this was holding him back rather seriously. As I noted, he took Jordan into championship contention two years later
When Hamilton left McLaren, Button looked forward to having the team develop the car around him, saying "It's my car now!" Not that it did him much good, but the fact he said it is significant. Think back to the drivers at McLaren in 2008, and you'll see what I meant.

I'm merely making comparison with the Williams in respect to this special fete accomplished by JV and how is it almost identical to debut in a dominant car as opposed to a none dominant car, the worse that JV could reasonable finish was second whilst the worst that Hamilton could reasonable finish was 4th.

This kind of measurement doesn't pass scrutiny, JV was basically driving a 2014 Mercedes whilst Hamilton was driving a 2017/18 Ferrari just to put some perspective on it in todays terms.

Sure there were differences. No-one's arguing there weren't. But there are a lot of similarities, too. You're getting way too hung up on the technicalities. JV had a pretty decent debut, the best of anyone until Hamilton came along. And the first two years played out almost the same.

Surely the only similarity is that both drivers narrowly lost the drivers' title in their first season and then won it in their second. The context within which each driver achieved this is entirely different. I think the point is that Villeneuve could not fail to have an impressive-looking start to his F1 career given that he had the best car by quite a margin.

Are you actually saying that Hill is not a weaker driver than Alonso? I don't think you'd get much support for that position, tbh.

JV's car wasn't simply better it was a lot better, a dominant car in his first year and out and out best car in his second year, Barrichello managed to beat Schumacher a few times I don't understand the relevance of that?

...but it computes perfectly alright to say that Hill would have closed the gap to Senna so we have some imaginary performance gap that Hill lives in that has no actual measurement?

Surely the only similarity is that both drivers narrowly lost the drivers' title in their first season and then won it in their second. The context within which each driver achieved this is entirely different. I think the point is that Villeneuve could not fail to have an impressive-looking start to his F1 career given that he had the best car by quite a margin.

I do not think that anyone claimed that JV was as good as Hamilton (something that always bugs certain people in here). Rather that there are parallels in their first two years results. Which there are. Nothing more, nothing less.

The relevance is that he still managed to get wins and therefore beat his more established team mate on occasion. Kovaleinen has demonstrated that getting into a top car isn't enough and the driver has to perform, too.

Hamilton had the joint best car in his first year - the difference between that and JV's situation isn't exactly huge. The Ferraris and McLarens were way ahead of the rest of the field. JV impressed most people when he started in F1 and the bottom line is that until Hamilton came along he was the most successful rookie. And in JV's second year although the car started very strongly JV certainly had to fight for it after the first few races. It's not like all JV had to do was turn up and I think you're doing him a disservice by writing down his title to the car. In any event, however you like to cut it the fact remains that both rookies came 2nd in their debut year and both then succeeded in getting the title in their 2nd year

I do not think that anyone claimed that JV was as good as Hamilton (something that always bugs certain people in here). Rather that there are parallels in their first two years results. Which there are. Nothing more, nothing less.

It's being used as a means to measure JV against Hamilton to prove that JV was better than Rosberg do you not then delve into the truth of it?

I do not think that anyone claimed that JV was as good as Hamilton (something that always bugs certain people in here). Rather that there are parallels in their first two years results. Which there are. Nothing more, nothing less.

To re-iterate what I said before, I don't think Villeneuve could have failed to look impressive in those first two years given the car he was driving.

Sure, I don't believe anyone suggested that. I think the original point that was being made was that Villeneuve's first two seasons were impressive on the basis that his results were similar to Hamilton's in his first two. The disagreement here is that I don't see much relevance to the fact that the two drivers achieved similar results in their first two seasons given that they both did so under quite different circumstances. To re-iterate what I said before, I don't think Villeneuve could have failed to look impressive in those first two years given the car he was driving.

Heikki was in the second best car in 2008 and let's not talk about how good the car was in 2009, JV's performances were often masked by how good the Williams was in 1996, the qualifying gap to Hill was quite large 13-3 with an average gap of 0.34s, Hill won 8 races, JV won 4 races, Hill scored 19 more points than JV which in todays money is 48 points with the same mechanical unreliability. The car had similar performance to the Mercedes car of 2014-16, I'm sure in such a car the likes of Bottas might look better and not be in threat of losing his seat.

Anyway you was comparing with Hamilton not Heikki, that seems to be shifting things, Hamilton matched Alonso in every department something that JV didn't do in any department with Hill and Alonso is seen as a much better driver than Hill, let's also not forget here is that your goal is to prove your assertion that JV was a better driver than Rosberg so I think you are coming up a bit short if you are looking to ascertain that JV and Hamilton were quite close in actual performance.

In 1997 the Williams wasn't simply stronger in the first few races, it was dominant in the first half of the season, the second half of the season was more of a fight but not always against the same car it was still the best car in the second half of the season, the car had a season long average qualifying advantage of 0.29s to the next best car at any given race.

Except that's not true. I never claimed that I could prove JV was better than Rosberg. In fact I said:

Point is that's very much subjective.

The only measure I took was to say that Hamilton and JV had almost identical debuts. But I clarified that in later posts by saying I thought Hamilton was better than JV. You're adding 2 plus 2 and coming up with 5 here because you're arguing against a claim I never actually made.

We were comparing drivers of Schumacher's era with those of today. I voiced the opinion that Schumacher's era wasn't completely devoid of talent as some are trying to make out. I highlighted JV's and Hill's achievements to show they were better than average and openly expressed a subjective opinion that I felt both were better than Rosberg. I never once tried to "prove" that and indeed stated right from the beginning that this was impossible. It's not me trying to prove anything

I don't see that. We've had one-sided driver pairings in dominant cars before. How about 1998, when Coulthard won a grand total of a single race (compared to eight for his teammate) in a car that was at times a second per lap faster than the competition? If Villeneuve had done something like that, it wouldn't have been impressive. He didn't match Hill, but he was respectably close for his first year.

He didn't do as well as Hamilton in his first year, but I don't think you need to match the best rookie season of all time to look good. And to be perfectly honest, I think Villeneuve's 1997 campaign was every bit as impressive as Hamilton's 2008 season. He beat a highly rated teammate who many had tapped to expose him, and he didn't make any more mistakes than Hamilton did.

He could have failed to win the title, though. Still had to beat Frentzen at the very least, whose junior record led many to believe he had the potential to be quicker than Schumacher, IIRC.

I'm not shifting things at all. I'm pointing out that a good car isn't a guarantee of success, as demonstrated by Kovaleinen. Which supports the idea that JV wasn't half bad.

I do think that JV is a better driver than Rosberg. But - and it's getting a little tiring having to repeat this - I'm not looking to prove it as I don't think it can be proven. Please don't put words into my mouth, thanks very much. I'm just highlighting that JV isn't the nonentity you seem to think he is and at the end of the day it's just my opinion.

I don't rate Rosberg very highly at all. We've discussed this before so it shouldn't come as a surprise and it's not as though I'm shifting position. I think he's very fast but comparative to his speed I think his racecraft is mediocre at best. And I'd rate both Hill and JV superior in that department.

The car was the car to have in 1997, no disagreement there, but that doesn't mean that the drivers could cruise to the finish. They still had work to do and their advantage wasn't big enough that they could afford to relax. JV didn't disgrace himself in either year and he put in a decent enough performance. Liker I said, I think you do him a disservice by putting it all down to the car.

The problem with JV is what came after, he got sacked after getting beat by Button, nearly got sacked after being beat by Massa but hung onto his 2 year contract, but even then was let go late in the season after trailing behind Heidfeld, his best 2 years were basically when he was in the best car in F1, the first year a dominant car, the second year still clearly the best car but yes he got the job done and at the time yes he was highly thought of, but that was basically the pinnacle of his career that one year, the following season he beat Frentzen by 4 points, that's just a quick google search.

Rosberg you don't rate because he got beat by Hamilton, the only driver he lost to apart from his rookie season, he beats various teammates with poor racecraft?

Rosberg retired as Champion with no downside after that unlike JV who had the indignity of looking no better than a tier 2 driver after losses to such drivers.

Paul di Resta beat Vettel in F3 and they were both in the same team.

I don't see that. We've had one-sided driver pairings in dominant cars before. How about 1998, when Coulthard won a grand total of a single race (compared to eight for his teammate) in a car that was at times a second per lap faster than the competition? If Villeneuve had done something like that, it wouldn't have been impressive. He didn't match Hill, but he was respectably close for his first year.

He didn't do as well as Hamilton in his first year, but I don't think you need to match the best rookie season of all time to look good. And to be perfectly honest, I think Villeneuve's 1997 campaign was every bit as impressive as Hamilton's 2008 season. He beat a highly rated teammate who many had tapped to expose him, and he didn't make any more mistakes than Hamilton did.

Paul di Resta beat Vettel in F3 and they were both in the same team.

DC was poor that year but then again he was paired with Hakkinen who I would rate that bit better than Hill, the 1996 Williiams still comes out as being better than the 1998 McLaren even with Hill as the main driver as opposed to Hakkinen.

The 1997 Williams was clearly the better car, it was dominant in the first part of the season, the 2008 McLaren was competitive but it wasn't the best car.

I don't see that. We've had one-sided driver pairings in dominant cars before. How about 1998, when Coulthard won a grand total of a single race (compared to eight for his teammate) in a car that was at times a second per lap faster than the competition? If Villeneuve had done something like that, it wouldn't have been impressive. He didn't match Hill, but he was respectably close for his first year.

He didn't do as well as Hamilton in his first year, but I don't think you need to match the best rookie season of all time to look good. And to be perfectly honest, I think Villeneuve's 1997 campaign was every bit as impressive as Hamilton's 2008 season. He beat a highly rated teammate who many had tapped to expose him, and he didn't make any more mistakes than Hamilton did.

not sure I understand your point here?

I think the point being made is that someone's junior career is often not an indication of how good they are in F1. Although personally I'd prefer to cite Jan Magnussen or Giorgio Pantano.

Again I feel there's a false equivalence being drawn here because the competitiveness of the 1997 Williams and 2008 McLaren were quite different. I am firmly of the opinion that the 96-97 Williams was on the level of the 14-16 Mercedes and that Schumacher only made it look like it wasn't by being that much better than everyone else. Villeneuve did admittedly beat Frentzen quite comfortably in 97, although less so in 98, but Frentzen is such a difficult yardstick to use because he was so hopelessly inconsistent over his career. Personally I never worked out if he was any good or not: I have trouble believing that the Frentzen of 1999 was the same driver as the one I saw in 1997 and 2001.

If the 1997 Williams had been on a par with the 2014-16 Mercedes then it wouldn't have mattered how good Schumacher was as he wouldn't have been able to touch them. From Canada onwards pole yo-yo'd between different cars - not just Schumacher - and it's almost impossible to imagine that happening in the Merc dominant years. I don't think that's a realistic comparison at all.

Is this one of these "you guys didn't praise Hamilton enough" things again? The point has been made before that Zoue did not allude that JV is better than Hamilton, which is always a sore point it seems, so don't worry. Only that the results are comparable.

Sure the Macca didn't enjoy the advantage that the Williams did, but it wasn't disadvantaged in any way, I'd put it joint first.