Jacques Villeneuve: Modern F1 is a fake show [split]

I didn't even see it as a negative comment about Kimi from Jacques. Just stating something that a lot of people are stating. When listing the fittest F1 drivers Kimi hardly is on top of that list. All drivers have their strengths and their weaknessess. But pointing out something weak with Kimi always seems to be met with such more hostility. 

 

Jacques does have a point here. I think he makes a lot of great points about the current state of F1, and I do not think his point about less physical cars being more of a plus to Kimi than say Fernando is taken out of the blue or something to be shot down or something from an underlining motive to talk down Kimi. I doubt he needs a special motive to say that. It's like people expressing doubts about Sebastian Vettel racing through the field, or Fernando Alonso handling a quick(er) team mate or Lewis Hamilton handling when things are not going his way etc. 

 

There are "negative" or less positive things to say even about the God we know as Kimi. Live with it ;) Otherwise I feel this could be a tough season for the most enthusiastic Kimi fans. 

 

Back on the topic you can say a lot of things about Jacques Villeneuve and Eddie Irvine but they have expressed some valid opinions about the direction of F1 I think a lot of fans of the sport agree with - and a lot of writers on this forum. One of the better points in Jacques latest interview I think is that F1 going this more artificial route puts them under pressure to continue to do this constantaly to a point where the sport has changed fundamentally away from the traditional values of the sport. NASCAR is a good example of that, they are feeling forced to continue with artificial regulation changes to keep the "interest" up to a point where they are risking to get lost about what they are and stand for and F1 is now running the same risk. 

 

I'm happy former drivers such as Eddie Irvine and Villeneuve express that opinion because from the people inside the sport currently active will not say that which is a shame. 

Am I missing something?

Are Raikkonens fitness scores public or something? 

Or do you and Villeneuve basically follow his every step and make notes when or where he does training?

I dont know raikkonens fitness results and I havent searched for them.

What I know is that his best performances from the last years often came in the late phases of the races and that was also the time where he gains the most time.

And he never looks  too exhausted afterwards.

So no, I dont think his fitness has hindered him recently.

I am not claiming he can compare to the fittest guys out there, but he doesnt need to, his fitness seems to be sufficient already.

If he can score a podium in a 2 hour bumpy street circuit starting behind the top 10 while suffering  back pain from the day before, then I qualify that as good enough fitness and will power in my book.

He doesnt gain anyhting by driving an even less demanding car.

It was a dig at raikkonen, he does it all the time.

Edited by beute, 14 February 2014 - 16:17.

I am not his fan as a racing driver, however I agree with his right to speak and also with what he's saying.

sure, f1 might have problems new from when he was driving so there was need for some solutions. The chosen ones are crap

F1 is not a show.

Pay drivers who seldom say something interesting they may be, but I'd wager every single one of them would beat J.V. in his prime in equal machinery.

I agree with him about the DRS crap... when you hear the announcers go "He's got DRS open!!" you pretty much know its a done deal... and theres nothing the driver in front can do about it.

 

Should be renamed the sitting duck system.

Did you see Austin 2012?

The yearly "JV hates current F1" topic. This time it came sooner than the Canadian GP

Maybe JVi was speaking about Kimi in a chav kind of way, as in if he'd fancied him then he'd have said he was 'well fit'. 

Neil

Edited by Maustinsj, 14 February 2014 - 17:43.

Pay drivers who seldom say something interesting they may be, but I'd wager every single one of them would beat J.V. in his prime in equal machinery.

Very few pay drivers would beat a driver of Villeneuve's ability. People don't have to like him, but to pretend he was a nobody is intentionally stupid. 

Pay drivers who seldom say something interesting they may be, but I'd wager every single one of them would beat J.V. in his prime in equal machinery.

That'a irrelevant. JV did what all drivers aim to do - get paid to drive the best car. That automatically places them above them. his driving at the time was in 'demand' unlike theirs.

Am I missing something?

Are Raikkonens fitness scores public or something? 

Or do you and Villeneuve basically follow his every step and make notes when or where he does training?

 

 

I dont know raikkonens fitness results and I havent searched for them.

What I know is that his best performances from the last years often came in the late phases of the races and that was also the time where he gains the most time.

And he never looks  too exhausted afterwards.

 

So no, I dont think his fitness has hindered him recently.

I am not claiming he can compare to the fittest guys out there, but he doesnt need to, his fitness seems to be sufficient already.

If he can score a podium in a 2 hour bumpy street circuit starting behind the top 10 while suffering  back pain from the day before, then I qualify that as good enough fitness and will power in my book.

 

He doesnt gain anyhting by driving an even less demanding car.

It was a dig at raikkonen, he does it all the time.

Very simply.   His back injury!  It has been a cause of concern in some qualification sessions as well as races.  Maybe he played it up a bit during the negotiations of getting paid and threaten to not show up but still.. his back is fragile.  So if the current reg favor a Formula that isn't pushing lap after lap at maximum effort... then it can definitely let Kimi shine moreso then if it was all out sprints every lap.

Very few pay drivers would beat a driver of Villeneuve's ability. People don't have to like him, but to pretend he was a nobody is intentionally stupid. 

Exactly. people just try and belittle him because of his paycheck and instant F1 success.. he destroyed HHF.. should have beaten DH had it not being for internal politics at Williams and FIA.  Let alone, that absolute stunning 1st GP destroying POLE position.  From what was written, he killed it during his 1st test sessions as well.  He beat MS in the finale.. when Ferrari and Michael were probably easily equal with Williams-Jacques.. and still beat him.  It's not his fault Williams lost the werks engine.  Went about starting a team that had a "chance" at doing something good.. didn't work out.  Hurt his back and was never the same since.  Grooved tires also had a lot to do with it IMO. 

Either way... doesn't mean his insight in 2014 Formula isn't right.. bang on..

Edited by Paco, 14 February 2014 - 18:30.

It's right on some areas, others he sounds like a forum weirdo.

I agree in the criticism towards double points for last race.

The rest is just the average rant about how good the past was you could hear from any average fan. 2008, 2010, 2012 are all between the best seasons ever (both in race by racing racing and title battle). 

Pay drivers who seldom say something interesting they may be, but I'd wager every single one of them would beat J.V. in his prime in equal machinery.

I am gobsmacked that anyone here could possibly think that.

Exactly. people just try and belittle him because of his paycheck and instant F1 success.. he destroyed HHF.. should have beaten DH had it not being for internal politics at Williams and FIA.  Let alone, that absolute stunning 1st GP destroying POLE position.  From what was written, he killed it during his 1st test sessions as well.  He beat MS in the finale.. when Ferrari and Michael were probably easily equal with Williams-Jacques.. and still beat him.  It's not his fault Williams lost the werks engine.  Went about starting a team that had a "chance" at doing something good.. didn't work out.  Hurt his back and was never the same since.  Grooved tires also had a lot to do with it IMO. 

 

Either way... doesn't mean his insight in 2014 Formula isn't right.. bang on..

I think people have just forgotten how quick Villeneuve was on slick tyres. Unfortunately, the move to grooved tyres and increased reliance on aero hindered him, but oh well. As a huge Schumacher fan, even I'll admit that JV out raced Schumacher at Jerez 97. He surprised Schumacher that day, and many of us too.

Folks, the subject of this thread is Jacques Villeneuve's remarks, not an opportunity to debate his general abilities or personality. Obviously any remarks can be considered in the context of who the author is and where he or she might be coming from but it's taking over the discussion here.

Very simply.   His back injury!  It has been a cause of concern in some qualification sessions as well as races.  Maybe he played it up a bit during the negotiations of getting paid and threaten to not show up but still.. his back is fragile.  So if the current reg favor a Formula that isn't pushing lap after lap at maximum effort... then it can definitely let Kimi shine moreso then if it was all out sprints every lap.

Bullshit, its one of those, 'By the way I think Räikkönen is ****' comments he habitually squezes into almost every piece of commentay he makes  on F1 e.g. "Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delandam"

If Villeneuves comments on Räikkönen were used to qualify the latter he would be considered the worst plague ever beset on F1, no more no less, and it is getting bloody tedious.

Edited by Oho, 14 February 2014 - 21:03.

DRS, Automan Drivers and Double Points are ruining racing.   Utterly groundbreaking thoughts from Jacques once again. 

DRS, Automan Drivers and Double Points are ruining racing.   Utterly groundbreaking thoughts from Jacques once again. 

If someone asks him for his opinion, what do you want him to say?

I'm not sure I'm really seeing Jacques' points here.

F1 has for the longest time been artificial. It's regulated to produce specific cars and specific kinds of racing. F1 is not simply 'the fastest to drive 300km'. If it was, we'd have very different cars. Is it perhaps overdone? Yes, I'd say so - but it wasn't a free-for-all in the 1990s either.

I dislike DRS as much as the next guy, but not because of what it does, but because of how it is regulated. The F-duct, or J-switch, was kind of cool and much more free, and to some degree had the same effect.

The trouble with talking about personality is that you can't just take one personality type - usually the outgoing and outspoken kind - and brand it as 'personality'. You can have a great personality without dyeing your hair blond or trying to get a rise out of people with provocative remarks.

I definitely agree on the double points though. The proverb might say that money doesn't stink - but in this case it most certainly does.

Edited by Nonesuch, 14 February 2014 - 23:45.

2 thumbs up to Eddie and Jacques.  At least some F1 members still have their bearings... and to think Eddie and Jacques would be the voice of reason..... OMG.. that alone speaks volumes of the idiotic F1 rules and powers at be are...

 

I would love to see 1 race run the same way it was in 1996... too bad it wont happen. 

 

12 lap qualifying

No parc ferme

Unlimited fuel stops

Unlimited number of tires

Points 10-6-4-3-2-1

use whatever compound you want of tires whenever you want

NO DRS during the race

No penalities for car reliability

 

For future races, parc ferme post qualifying introduced but that's it!  can change tires prior to the race on the grid.

Me too. Then we'll see how good the drivers truly are.

Michael Schumacher drove in the fastest era in F1 compared to now.

Edited by George Costanza, 15 February 2014 - 04:58.

Pay drivers who seldom say something interesting they may be, but I'd wager every single one of them would beat J.V. in his prime in equal machinery.

Really? would they outqualify the gird by 1.7 seconds faster like he did in 1997 AUS GP? I very much doubt they could hang with Jacques and would any pay driver give Michael Shumacher in his prime, no less, a run; let alone beat Michael in his prime? yeah, that's what I thought. No.

Edited by George Costanza, 15 February 2014 - 05:15.

I'm not sure I'm really seeing Jacques' points here.

 

F1 has for the longest time been artificial. It's regulated to produce specific cars and specific kinds of racing. F1 is not simply 'the fastest to drive 300km'. If it was, we'd have very different cars. Is it perhaps overdone? Yes, I'd say so - but it wasn't a free-for-all in the 1990s either.

I think the point he's trying to make is that all the "old" rules had to do with the sport - safety, fairness and to keep the laps times approximately the same as the years go by.

The "new" rules are just put in to "improve the show", to "add some spice", and to try to get larger TV audiences (which equals more money for the promoter).

P.S. To Mods: This thread needs some posts deleted. Its turning into yet another "my favorite driver is better than yours" pissing contest.

Yeap. I agree. F1 is getting easier to drive these days, and more entertaining. The tracks are more forgiving. Drivers can push and get away with it. Those days, one mistake and it's over. The engines constantly exploded. We didn't know who will win the race. Now engines last the whole season. The leader at the end of the first lap is most likely the winner. The drivers don't look drained or stressed out. They look more like an evening cruise. Those days, i never miss an F1 race. Now i see who is leading after 5 laps top, and i'm out.  

I doubt it.  Mechanical engineering went a long way in the last two decades.  Engineers can now create parts much more consistently, and they can also be far more precise in trading performance for reliability.  With more precision and consistency, the payoff for endangering your reliability for performance is just not there anymore.

hello?

this is a basic formula, you can't have ultimate performance with 100% reliability. That is the nature of the bleeding edge.

The fundamentals do not change because technology advanced.

I'm with JV on this one. 

Yeap. I agree. F1 is getting easier to drive these days, and more entertaining. The tracks are more forgiving. Drivers can push and get away with it. Those days, one mistake and it's over. The engines constantly exploded. We didn't know who will win the race. Now engines last the whole season. The leader at the end of the first lap is most likely the winner. The drivers don't look drained or stressed out. They look more like an evening cruise. Those days, i never miss an F1 race. Now i see who is leading after 5 laps top, and i'm out.  

Sorry, but you have this mixed up. Nowadays, leading the race at the first lap means not that much at all because it is possible to overtake even without being 5s+ faster. Whereas in 'those days' the only way to get past was often the pit stops. I think you're just looking at the past through rose-tinted glasses. 

Bullshit, its one of those, 'By the way I think Räikkönen is ****' comments he habitually squezes into almost every piece of commentay he makes  on F1 e.g. "Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delandam"

 

If Villeneuves comments on Räikkönen were used to qualify the latter he would be considered the worst plague ever beset on F1, no more no less, and it is getting bloody tedious.

JV is talking the truth about modern F1. I for one have lost a lot of interest, especially since DRS came into play. It a bit reminds me of Mario Kart nowadays. This season I’ll be more interested since we have a swede in F1 again.

But I think all the “JV bashing Kimi” comments are exaggerated. This last comment just shows that JV thinks Kimi is a great talent – maybe the greatest out there? JV, when interviewed, always speaks freely and widely from his heart and spits a lot of words per minute from which journalists can grasp and twist it around the way they want to get headlines.

Some examples

http://news.bbc.co.u...one/6376617.stm

This turned into: ”Kimi is overrated” all over the world.

Another one: This quote below turned into headlines on almost every F1 website suggesting that JV thinks Kimi is an unworthy champion. That is not at all what JV was saying, rather he claimed that over that stint Massa and Kimi were teammates Massa deserved the title more in 2008 than Kimi did in 2007.

TOTALRACE: You were Massa's teammate at Sauber in 2005. In 2008, he was capable of beating Raikkonen, a driver with a better profile than his, in the same team. Now he is having a hard time challenging Alonso. Is Fernando so much better than Kimi or is it Felipe who isn't as fast as he was before his accident?

JACQUES VILLENEUVE: For me he's still the same. Im my opinion, Kimi in 2008 was very distracted, Felipe beat him with ease. There's always one year – or a couple – when things don't go well. The car doesn't go with your driving style, things just don't work properly. It takes very little in F1 for things to not work to the max. Felipe was clearly ahead, and if Kimi won the championship, that was very lucky, because Felipe deserved it more. He was more effective than Kimi and, for him, it was easy to beat Raikkonen.

Jacques knows Kimis abilities, he even bet him for the title in 2013:

http://www.auto123.com/en/racing-news/f1-jacques-villeneuve-bets-everything-on-alonso-and-raikkonen?artid=154257

 I think both Villeneuve and Raikkonen are great champions who won their championships in spectacular style.

I think the moderns cars though aero wise are far too easy the new engiens are going to make things tough, lot more torque, might suit finesse even more.

Aeromeans it will still be hard to pass which sucks, but seem to be the way F1 is now.

but these engines will take a time to learn, and noone has anty experience really of high power turbo's. and they take some learning or maybe not learning but certainly to find the best way to drive them does.

And that will be interesting to watch develop.

Something Jacques had some experience of in CART I guess, but not in F1, still think he is moaning for moaning sake, but then he pretty much always has at times

Brundle isn't crapping into his own nest. Odd that two old F1 drivers with severed ties are stating their opinion whereas the rest is still tied to the sport. I hate those pundits not daring to have a say about current F1.

Your perspective will automatically be colored by your circumstance. Irvine hasn't been involved in racing of any kind for basically a decade. It's approaching almost as long for Villeneuve in the F1 world. So it will seem more distant to them. Brundle is still involved day to day.

Though yes, Brundle will have other concerns.

And it's funny for him to say they're coming out of the woodwork for publicity. You'd think someone who works for a major broadcaster, publishes books, etc knows that the press tend to launch these things not the subject.

Jacques Villeneuve could drive his old Williams into space to blow up an asteroid heading to destroy the entire Earth and there'd still be people saying it doesn't count because he had the best car.

They'd also say he did it for the publicity.

I wonder if Brundle will say the same next time someone like Stirling Moss says modern F1 isn't as good.

"DRS is an abomination" is a ridiculous statement whether you're a fan or a world champion. It's a clumsy solution to a horrible problem. Having cars stack up in dirty air for the sake of a purity of racing that doesn't exist, is foolish.

When racing implodes it won't be because they went too far...

"DRS is an abomination" is a ridiculous statement whether you're a fan or a world champion. It's a clumsy solution to a horrible problem. Having cars stack up in dirty air for the sake of a purity of racing that doesn't exist, is foolish.
 
When racing implodes it won't be because they went too far...

They had a partial solution to that problem with the driver adjustable front wings, which they did away with.  DRS is fine, when they get the zone lengths correct. 

Its not a problem, it's a clumsy fix. But it does *something*. Which is far more than you'll get out of the teams or the FIA. They went down the aerodynamic rabbit hole, this is what they end up with. 

DRS is one of the few good moves they make. Sure some blowhards don't like it but they're an impossibly inconsequential minority.

Its not a problem, it's a clumsy fix. But it does *something*. Which is far more than you'll get out of the teams or the FIA. They went down the aerodynamic rabbit hole, this is what they end up with. 
 
DRS is one of the few good moves they make. Sure some blowhards don't like it but they're an impossibly inconsequential minority.

There´s nothing wrong with the DRS concept.

Sometimes they overcook the lenght of zones, or the number of zones. They should be more flexible, if a circuit needs no zones, so be it, you don´t have to throw two zones for the sake of it. Also they could move the zones backwards closer to the exit of corners and having them locked towards the end of the straights so you get slipstreams instead of drive by passes.

But I have no problem with it at all as a concept. 

IIRC, that's not what previous polls on here showed.

Internet polls and other surveys ARE the impossibly inconsequential minority.

DRS is one of the few good moves they make.

Sure they do. You get at least a fighting chance to overtake someone and it starts to balance the aerodynamic deficit. The car ahead is advantaged in all the corners, you have the advantage on one or two straights.