Wolf, no need to apologize, I realized that your error was completely unintentional, and I think I went back and edited to post to make it clearer.

AD, Gilles DID win wet races. Kyalami '79, Watkins Glenn '79 was in the wet. As were parts of Mtl'78, '80 and '81. When Gilles drove a good car in the wet, he could be 11 seconds faster. It is common knowledge that GV was a superior driver in the rain, best ever? I don't know, but everytime it rained, GV made up places. Unfortunatly I can't post lap or race charts like I could for modern drivers, to show the progress of a driver throughout a race. Short of that you rely on memory and the historical documents. Every writer, from that time is of one voice, Gilles ruled in the rain.

Point of order.

I move that we have all critical references to GV's failure to "dominate" CR in 1977 or JS in 1979, and any critical reference to his failure to win a wet race be struck from the record, or at the very least, have the jury instructed to ignore these remarks when considering their verdict.

I ask this despite the fact that I believe we have already argued convincingly that GV was in fact, the dominant racer in 1979 and despite the fact that he is acknowledged by most to have been an accomplished wet weather driver.

I request this on the basis that regardless of it's truth or untruth, it is irrelevant, thus;

Fangio was beaten in the WDC in 1950 by team-mate Giuseppe Farina.
Prost was beaten in the WDC in 1980 by team-mate John Watson
Prost was beaten in the WDC in 1984 by team-mate Niki Lauda
Senna was beaten in the WDC in 1988 (in terms of pure points) by team-mate Prost.
Senna was beaten in the WDC in 1989 by team-mate Prost

All of the above show that the group with which we seek to place GV can hardly be said to have "dominated" all of their team-mates. This being the case, a failure by GV to "dominate" all of his team-mates can hardly be used as reason to exclude him from this select group.

Likewise, Prost cannot have been said to have been a "rainmaster" as proved by his finishing behind tyro team-mate Damon Hill in the wet (and over a lap behind Senna) at Donnington and sliding off a wet track on the warm up lap and stalling his Ferrari at Imola in 1991. Even his wet win at Monaco in 1984 was suggestive of his lack of inspiration in the rain given the cars that were catching him hand over fist before the premature race stop.

This being the case, a failure by GV (if such is the case) to have become an acknowledged rainmaster can hardly be used as reason to exclude him from this select group.

I do not seek to criticise or sully the records of the three drivers with whom we are comparing Villeneuve, I am simply asking that the court not countenance what appears to be a blatant double standard, vis a vis the apparent and implied requirement for GV to achieve that which the "big three" had not in order to be considered their equal.

Yes Bruce, I was wrong about Prost's car in 1981 - it was the RE30 Renualt. Still it was his second season, and yet he scored 43 points, only 7 from eventual world champion Piquet. 5th overall but within a race of winning the WC in what was a very close year. Truth be told the Williams and Brabham were more effective cars.

Additionally, with Juan Fangio, the Mercedes W196 was not as good a car as the results indicate. The Lancia D50 was certainly a better car and the Maserati 250F in the right hands was a deadly weapon, but the 250F wasn't in the right hands, and Lancia's efforts fell apart after the unfortunate death of Alberto Ascari. Had he lived I'm sure the 1955 season would have been quite different. Possibly even with a different world champion, but that's speculation.

yours
Mark Jones

OK, the stats have been done to death, but lets take the 1979 season when Villeneuve nearly won the championship, since some feel that it is unfair to take his other sesasons, when he was a rookie or had a poor car, and compare it to the career results of Fangio, Senna, Prost, and for good measure, Moss and Stewart.

Villeneuve finishes dead last in every category except driver errors and fastest laps, He is out of contention by a fair margin in wins, poles, and in average race and grid classification. Villeneuve is in the Fangio/Moss category in fastest laps, which is not unexpected.

Please also notice that Fangio is in a class by himself when it comes to wins, average race classification, average grid position, and podiums.

Gilles was a great driver, but he wasn't a Fangio. Even Prost and Senna were not Fangio.



"Reliable starts" are races which were either finished or terminated by some cause other than a mechanical failure, and will yield a higher percentage than if mechanical failures are counted.
[p][smallfont][Edited by Williams on 01-17-2001][/smallfont]

I'm willing to bet that Schumacher's numbers in all categories are second only to Fangio. Do the numbers mean Schumcaher is a better driver than all drivers listed, bar Fangio? I don't mean to bring Schumacher into the picture, but if the numbers are what we are to judge Gilles by, then you should include Schumacher, because I believe all his numbers would be better than Senna's, except pole positions and front row starts.

I move that Bruce's above "point of order" be struck from the record, or at the very least, have the jury instructed to ignore these remarks when considering their verdict, for the following reasons:

Suppose we conclude that Villeneuve did not dominate his teammates, but we also conclude that Villeneuve is worthy of being included in the "Big Three". Then it would be reasonable to conclude that the men who drove the same cars as Villeneuve and achieved similar results must also be included in the "Top Three", or thereabouts. I don't think that anyone is ready in include Scheckter or Pironi among the top three all-time drivers.

Furthermore, the examples that Bruce gave are all terrible. The year that Farina beat Fangio, Farina was an accomplished 15-year veteran of the European circuits. Fangio had just started driving in Europe two years earlier. 1980 was Prost's rookie season, and 1984 was his first season with McLaren. The Senna/Prost examples have no bearing, since they are already in our "Big Three" and have nothing to prove.

Bruce's statement might have made sense if he had referred to non-teammates, since totally different cars will of course make a good driver lookd bad and vice-versa. But Ferrari, in the Villeneuve years, had a policy of letting the drivers fight it out on the track, and Scheckter and Villeneuve were given equal treatment and equipment, at leatst until the end of the season. The comparision of Villeneuve to his teammates is probably a fair one, except for the his two seasons as a rookie against Reutemann.

If we cannot at least compare two men driving the same car, then this entire hearing is totally out of order, since certainly you cannot say that Fangio is comparable to Senna, or Senna to Villeneuve.

For these reasons, it really is necessary to see some sort of dominant performance from Villeneuve with respect to his teammates in order for Villeneuve to be considered in the "Big Three".
[p][smallfont][Edited by Williams on 01-17-2001][/smallfont]

It has been argued that the judges must not look at GVs performance in 1980 and 1981 because his car was inferior.

Now the judges are being asked to ignore his qualifying and scoring performance relative to his teammate in 1979 because the other great drivers were also out-pointed by teammates in various seasons. It has been claimed that it would hold GV to an unfair standard to demand that he best his teammates in every year, since they did not always best their teammates.

The difference, however, is 1979 has been universally described as GVs best year in F1. His single most competitive and representative showing. It cannot be irrelevant that in his finest year in the sport, GV was beaten in both qualifying (prior to JS clinching the WDC) and WDC points by JS. JS was a good driver, a seasoned professional, but certainly not a man the three greats were likely to lose to in their finest years.

As far as I know, evidence is only struck from court transcripts if it could sway a jury unjustly. I have noted the objections of both sides, and will consider these before making my final judgement.

Peeko, this case is about Gilles Villeneuve, not Michael Schumacher. I've already given my reasons for not including Schumacher in this case.

This is a great thread..

Like Gilles said
"Finishing 2nd means your the first loser to cross the line"

You can talk till your blue in the face, it won't ever change my mind.

Gilles Villeneuve was the best at car control, in dry, wet hell even in the snow.

The rest are very far behind.

Put Gilles , Schumacher in the same car and believe me Schumacher would be more then 11 seconds behind.

Since I feel that the stats of the cases have been adequately discussed by others I would like to bring some more emotional lines of enquiry into the case.

Quoted from Judge's preamble


I think that the emotional response that elevates Gilles Villeneuve to the greats is a reflection of the following factors.

1) Ferrari - this team has always evoked more passion in fans than any other, esp when Enzo Ferrari was alive.


2) North America - Andretti was very much on the wane, Cheever was not achieving so the audience was searching for a new hero.

3) Television - the televising of all grand prix and therefore viewing by a large audience started in 1978. Many people 'experienced' F1 for the first time.

4) Gilles' death was the first televised death of a driver actually at the track and a highly visible one since he was ejected from the car.


I suggest that these aspects spur people to manipulate stats to support the 'feel' of Gilles' greatness



{Rich may have accidently submitted this post uncompleted please ignore the first one}

As much as I revere Mr. Villeneuve, in all honesty I must conclude that he cannot be included in the big three.

Though his courage was beyond reproach, he lacked a survival instinct that I believe is necessary to excell long term in the sport. He got himself killed because of it. Though that characteristic is very attractive, it was his doom.

Objection!! Sustained!!

Hehehe. Good enough Rich. Again, bringing Schumacher into the subject wasn't to include him into the top 3. But for some, the numbers game is what matters, and it was just an example that because if someone's figures are better, or worse, than another's it does not tell the whole story. The way I see it, you can only rank and compare drivers to/in their respected eras.Im terms of results, then no, Gilles does not rank with the big 3. In terms of skill, car control, courage, determination, and everything that's needed to succeed and achieve such results, I have no doubt Gilles had it by the bucket loads and is up there wih the best of them. About the only thing missing from Gilles repretoire was patience, which comes with experience and time, and I believe Gilles had finaly gotten there in 1982. I mean, I feel that it wasn't until 1990 (except Brazil and Hungary) that Senna began to race with his head, as well as his foot.

You can believe Gilles would be 11 seconds ahead of Schumacher, but you can't explain why he was behind Jody. It's dreams versus reality. Which I think neatly sums up this whole case.

Exactly, and the idea being debated is would Gilles have eventually won enough races and championships to be considered among drivers like Senna and Prost. When I demonstrated that Gilles crashed less than both those drivers I feel I've vindicated GV's reckless reputation. I believe that by 1981 Gilles had matured enough to be the best driver at every race. I feel that he would have dominated the 1982 season and would have re-energized the Ferrari team. In fact, Gilles' death, followed by that of Pironi is what brought Ferrari down. They were lost without Gilles and went through a succession of mediocre drivers until the late 80's/early 90's. And about the age issue, I feel that in Gilles' case it wouldn't have become an issue for a long time. The first thing to go on a racing driver is his nerve. Experience can easily make up the difference for the slight loss in relflexes. It's the passion and desire that go. Damon Hill is the latest example, He was still an excellent driver in 1997 and the only non-Ferrari/Maclaren driver to win a race, at Spa in the wet no less. Then flash foreward 6 months and he was hoplessly slow. There's no way Hill lost his ability so fast, unless he is hiding some medical problem! So I think I can find concensus that Gilles could afford to lose a bucket of nerve and still be among the bravest out there. Instead I think his passion would have been there well past his 40's. He would have retired when nobody would have taken him. Then he would have found something else to race! Who can truly say, but I believe that he could have raced until 1988-90, which would put him at 38-40 I believe. Perhaps even longer. If there's been ANYONE since Fangio that could have potentially driven into his 50's it would have been Gilles. And not even because of his skills so much as his passion.

To people not being able to distinguish between real driving talent and number of WDCs collected (according to this superficial logic, Sir Stirling Moss, a legendary driver by all standards, was inferior to Damon Hill, which is a pretty ridiculous statement): Gilles is hearing your points would be the first to laugh hysterically. He consistently and throughtout his career told the press how uninteresting it was to him to win an F1 World Championship. Gilles had an entirely different paramether in mind when competing: pushing his car to the limit and being able to ride this limit. Whether his car was a 22nd place car or a pole position car, he would push it to its and the track's limit. That meant he was always the fastest possible, whatever the wetaher, track, car, tire, physical conditions. That was his challenge and his reward was in being able to stay at the limit without crashing out. Whether that meant an 8th place or a victory, it was secondary (of course he loved to win, but the limit came first). That the victory translated into 10 points, was entirely meaningless to Gilles.

If you understood anything about Gilles' psychology, and given this two scenarios:

2 wins, 3 poles, WDC

or

5 wins, 6 poles, 3rd in the WDC

You would know Gilles would have picked the second scenario any given day.

Gilles interpretation of racing was entirely different from Prost or Damon Hill. He believed a racer is someone who gives everything he's got all the time and demands the outmost performs from any car. As he said, he felt very few drivers in F1 were racers, the rest were drivers driving racing cars and Gilles quite openly questioned why they bothered at all.

In this sense, Gilles can without hesitation be included not only in the top 3 F1 racers of all time, but actually 2nd ever after only Tazio Nuvolari, as much of a daredevil and racer as Gilles

Yet Jody led Gilles in qualifying until he clinched the WDC, then lost the last two races to finish the year 7-8. Somehow Jody was driving faster than the man who "was always the fastest possible".

I know you can be a great driver and not win the WDC in a given season, or for a career. In my opinion what you can't do is get beat on the track - especially in qualifying !!!raw speed!!! by an average F1 driver like Jody - in your best year in the sport.

- Juan Manuel Fangio
[smallfont]http://www.bath.ac.uk/~bspahh/gilles/gilles.html[/smallfont]


- Alain Prost
[smallfont]http://www.bath.ac.uk/~bspahh/gilles/gilles.html[/smallfont]


- Gilles Villeneuve
[smallfont]from http://www.ddavid.com/formula1/vill_bio.htm[/smallfont]

Statistics. A collection of quantitative data or facts. For Fangio, Prost, and Senna, it is an easy task to "quantify" these drivers. They won races, they won championships, they will always be remembered as some of the best to ever stepped into a Formula One race car. Having said that, all 3 gentleman drove superior machinery for the bulk of their careers. Does this give us the license to diminish their respective accomplishments? No. But the court should recognise that Gilles Villeneuve did what the "big three" did not. Drive for the same team, through the good times and the bad. Unlike Fangio, Prost, and Senna, Gilles did not leap frog from one top ride to another. Again, this does not give one the license to diminish the accomplishments of the "big three", but the court should keep in mind that a driver needs superior machinery throughout his career to "consistently win" in Formula One. A driver needs superior machinery to collect statistics so that we the fans of an online forum, can quantify these drivers as "great"

So powerful is the need for superior machinery, Gilles' "numbers" do not even measure up against the likes of David Coulthard:

GP started: GV 66, DC 107
Wins: GV 6, DC 9
Podiums: GV 13, DC 41
Pole positions: GV 2, DC 10
Front row: GV 8, DC 32
Fastest laps: GV 8, DC 14
Points: GV 107, DC 294

Ratios: 'Item' / GP started
Wins: GV 9.09%, DC 8.41%
Podiums: GV 19.70%, DC 38.32%
Pole positions: GV 3.03%, DC 9.35%
Front row: GV 12.12%, DC 29.91%
Fastest laps: GV 12.12%, DC 13.08%
Points: GV 1.62, DC 2.75

Even David Coulthard is a statistical juggernaut when compared to Gilles. Now I imagine some on this forum, especially those who liken Jean Alesi's driving style with Gilles', would argue that Coulthard is closer to Fangio, Prost, and Senna than the French Canadian

Perception goes a long way in Formula One. Look no further than Jenson Button. As soon as he outpaced Ralf Schumacher just a couple of times, the British press were in a state of euphoria. Jenson was perceived to be better than Ralf, despite being regularly outqualified and being outscored in the championship 24-12! Are we to champion statistics when they do not favour Gilles Villeneuve then totally abandon statistics when it comes down to perceiving how good Jenson Button really is?

I believe that Gilles Villeneuve deserves to join Fangio, Senna and Prost in F1 racing's great triumvirate. Gilles Villeneuve has made a tremendous impact upon then whole racing community, to the people directly associated with F1 and of course, to fans around the world. This is not merely a Jean Alesi-like cult following but rather, an appreciation of the man's determination to win races, especially in machinery that be classified as less than competitive when compared to the race cars that were driven by Fangio, Prost, and Senna.

A final note on "perception". Jacques Villeneuve is perceived to be among the current "big three" in F1, along side Michael Schumacher and Mika Hakkinen. This perception is based chiefly on his time at Williams from 1996-1997. How many of us would rank Jacques amongst the top had he started his career with BAR? Again I remind the court and all of Atlas F1 that a driver needs superior machinery throughout his career to "consistently win" in Formula One.

1979 was not Gilles best year in the sport, it started with his 20th race ever (basically 3 races more than Janson Button, who we will see how he fares with Fisi) and against one of the fastest and most seasoned drivers in F1, who was the WDC in 79.

Gilles best season ever was 1981. I know you can't see beyond points, wins, poles, but his driving in 1981 was absolute mastery, while in 1979 was still raw potential being developed.

Also, your statement is incorrect. Until Monza, after 12 races, GV and JS were tied 6-6. Monza was the point where Ferrari asked Gilles to lose. And what is surprising is that Gilles, who had started in testing at Fiorano 2 seconds slower than Reutemann at the end of 77, who started 1978 1 second slower than Reutemann, was already capable of being at the same level of one of the best drivers of the time in only 20 GPs (I would argue that someone who won 10GPs and 1 WDC back in the 70s was NOT mediocre!!!). Now, where are the young drivers with 20 GPs who are capable of matching the qualifying performance of today's best drivers? I don't see any, not even Trulli, Fisi, Button or Ralf are there yet. So, let's keep it in perspective, the rookie had already mactched the WDC driver in 20 GPs, that is the reality. By 1981, come Monaco and Jarama, Gilles was head and shoulders above the rest, fantastic drivers like DeAngelis and good drivers like Reutemann, Watson, and Laffitte were powerless with much better and faster machinery. That is like having in 2000 Gilles dominate Monaco and Spain with a Bennetton. Get the picture?

From Redfever:



Judge's Preamble :



Racing to win laps and racing to win championships are two totally different things. Fangio, Prost, and Senna all raced to win championships. This promotes a different set of behaviours, championship behaviours, like preserving a car to accept points for second place, maneuvering for the right ride next year, and so on. Gilles was never interested in these things.

The interesting thing is that Gilles, if he is looking down on us, is wondering, "what the hell are they arguing about ? I don't care if I deserved to be in the top three or not, I just liked to race."

Amen to that, Gilles.

The main objective in Formula One driving is to win the championship, that is what successful F1 drivers try to do, and they shape their driving, career moves and behaviour accordingly. And their degree of success towards that goal is how they should be judged, not the number of fastest laps they manage to pull off.

Hmmm... so we should forgive Fangio his loss to Farina - suddenly a seasoned veteran and worldbeater - as Fangio had only raced in Europe for several years while Farina had been at it for years, but when GV is beaten in only his second F1 season and his second season in Europe,by a far more experienced driver he should be pilloried for it?



Actually, 1979 is only GV's best year from a statistical point of view. Certainly, 1979 was the year in which he had his most competitive car. However, his 2 wins in 1981 were by far more impressive than his 3 in 1979, because of the car he was driving. It should also be noted that in 1979 - his best statistical year, he finished second in the WDC only to Jody S, and by only 4 points and VOLUNTARILY which a lot of you seem to be forgetting... Also all this talk about JS easing off at the end of the season is a little convenient - do you think that JS was easing off at the beginning of the season when JV was beating him in the races too?



Apparently not... read on;

from Michele Alboreto;

Whern GV died, many suddenly were moved to remark at their own astounding prescience... they could all see it coming apparently... funny that Alboreto - a racer - did not. Same thing happened when Greg Moore died - suddenly there were lots of people willing to tell you how they could see that the poor boy was just trying too hard and was an accident waiting to happen....

Gilles death had less to do with bravery than qualifying tyres. Gilles had openly criticised the rules as regards qualifying tyres in 1982 - read up on it - if Gilles was being overly-brave he was being made to be by FISA/FOCA.

Gilles stats are poor. You guys can most probably have a field day with them - 6 wins, 2 poles, 7 podiums, 7 fastest laps.... Damon Hill kills the guy.

However, despite this, the three men with whom we seek to compare him held him in the highest esteem;

Fangio:


Prost:


And although I have been unable to find a quote saying so, I have heard numerous times that the driver who Ayrton Senna most venerated (after, of course, Fangio) and most wanted to emulate was none other than Gilles Villeneuve.

Although many of you don't seem to want to have him placed amongst the big three, it would appear that the big three themselves, despite his unimpressive statistics, would not only have no objections, but would themselves welcome his addition...

Gilles and mika fans use the same sort of logic.

They their is the fastest,driver despite evidence contrary to that.
Some people blatantly ignore the facts.

Lets forget about points and compare GVs 4 season in F1.

In 78 he was easily beaten by reautmenn
In 79 he was beaten by Jody.
In 80 he beat a retiring scheckter.
In 81 he beat pironi.

So he 4 seasons he was beaten by his team mates in 2 of them
Hardly stuff of legends.

In his 4 full seasons GV simply did not do enough to be ranked with Senna/prost,not even CLOSE to enough.

Jody was obviously quick in a good car,but he wasnt fast in a bad car.
Gv overcame the shortcomings on the 1980 ferrari better.
When the car was fast as it was in 79 the drivers were evenly matched.
Now its fair to say Jody was no senna or prost,so If gilles couldnt destroy jody,what chance would he have against prost or senna.

There is something I would like to bring to the court's attention:

Falcadore stated that direct, real impressions of experts at races cannot count as much as statistics, as they can "be as biasedly favourable as the statistics are not".

First: I use statistics for my job daily. I manipulate and utilize them any way I see fit to bring forward whatever case is in the best interest of my clients. Nobody in my industry (advertising) would consider statistics as an exact science, as the variables can be manipulated and distorted to fit whatever case. First we define the case, then we look at how we can manipulate numbers to fit them in our perfectly designed plan. It's an art, not a science.

Second: It is my understanding, and I am not a lawyer, that actual witnesses are the most relevant form of evidence used in trials. Often, also experts in a field are utilized as possible evidence to a case.

Here we have a case that is uniquely easy to clarify. We have many experts' opinions available. Fangio, Lauda, Arnoux, Ferrari, Alan Jones, etc, these are as expert as anyone can ever get about F1 racing. They actually drove or build F1 cars themselves, they ARE Formula 1. In this case, not only the experts can help the court with the professional opinions, but they are also in the unique position of being physical witnesses of Gilles Villeneuve racing ability. Their position as experts and actual witnesses places their opinion above the opinion of everyone here taking one position or another. Their opinion cannot and must not be discounted.

Third: I am somewhat surprised that the court is actually taking into consideration the points brought forward by people who actually never saw Gilles Villeneuve racing. It is beyond my comprehension how anyone can judge that he doesn't know. "I have heard", "I looked at numbers", can hardly be considered evidence in a court of law.

More "meaningless" stats:

1981
DP GV
qualifying wins (Ferrari) 6 9
fastest race lap (Ferrari)* 6 7

*(forix only shows one Ferrari in the fastest lap table for two races in 1981)


1982
DP GV
qualifying (Ferrari) 0 4
fastest lap (Ferrari) 3 1


Same car, same tracks, same F1 experience for the drivers.

With a normal driver we could ignore fastest laps because race circumstances often determine whether the car should/could be pushed to setting the fastest lap. With GV though, it has been argued over and over that one sure sign of his brilliance is the fact that he never took laps off, and was always pushing the car to it's limit. If these statements are true, we must also accept that GV was trying to drive the Ferrari as fast as possible, yet regularly failed to match DPs pace in qualifying and in race trim.

Different years, different teammate, same story - the fastest man of his generation watched his teammate drive faster roughly half the time.

If we have to ignore the performance of GVs teammates to accurately judge his greatness I'm at a loss for what we are to accept as evidence. I don't believe the best evidence is anecdotes or eulogies from friends and fans. Statistics can be misleading, but so can fanatical loyalty.

More on the poor equipment Gilles had to use in his career:

During practice at Dijon in 1981, Gilles crashed at the Courbe de Pouas, an undulating, flat-in-fourth right hander, with no run-off worth mentioning. During the lunch break I found him dabbing a cut on his jaw: "Bloody catch pole cracked my helmet and broke the visor ..."
"You overdid it ?" I asked. "Just ran out of road ?" "No, no," he grinned. "I ran out of lock ! "The car is really bad through there - an adventure every time. Go and have a look this afternoon and you'll see what I mean." I did. I watched the Cosworth-engined Williams and Brabhams droning through on their rails, and waited.

At its clipping point, at the top of a rise, the Ferrari was already sideways, its driver winding on opposite lock. As it came past me, plunging downhill now, the tail stayed out of line, further and further, and still Gilles had his foot hard down. As he reached the bottom of the dip, I knew the position was hopeless, for now it was virtually broadside, full lock on, Villeneuve's head pointing up the road, out of the side of the cockpit.

Somehow, though, the Ferrari did not spin, finally snapping back into line as it grazed the catch fencing, then rocketing away up the hill. For more than a hundred yards, I swear it, the car was sideways at 130 mph. "That's genius," said David Hobbs, watching with me. "Are you seriously telling me he's won two Grand Prix in that?"

Also, those of you who believe that the praise is due to his death, look at other deceased drivers. Pironi does not receive this kind of praise. Compare it to Senna and Ratzenberger, all the tragedies are equal, but some drivers are mourned for the magic they created on the track, and their stars shine brighter than the others after death. People wouldn't have said so much and in such strong language had Gilles been ordinary, or even very good. Pironi was very good, Peterson was very very good. Ratzenberger was potentially great as well. Senna and Gilles were special, and thankfully we got to see Senna's great talent be expressed in worthy machinery.

Small point in reply to Redfever:

The source Bruce gave said the team orders at Monza came after the two cars settled into 1-2 during the race (JS leading GV) - not before qualifying.

Until now, I have refrained from entering this discussion. After reading through the many lines of evidence presented thus far and mulling over the various arguments on this case, I find myself returning to the original thesis in this case:





I am perhaps one of the few to have watched Prost, Senna da Silva, Villeneuve, and Fangio under actual race conditions. I therefore find myself questioning the thrust of the entire case: on what basis was this "triumvirate" selected? On what criteria were the "triumvirate" selected? and by whom? and when?

The instructions to the correspondents in this case force me to beg the question:



I think that there significant questions here that need to resolved. Further, I find it highly peculiar the 2/3's of the "triumvirate" were contemporaries.

However, much to the relief of all involved the following forces me to withdraw from any further comments in this case, lest I be cited for contempt of court:



Were I to further comment on the case in question, I think that I would find myself begging to differ with the entire direction in which the case has been nudged. Statistics are merely bloodless, lifeless respresentations of what can be quantified. Gilles Villeneuve was definitely not someone who could be easily reduced to a "number."

I therefore notify the court that while under other circumstances I would be willing to provide expert testimony, I respectfully leave this to others.

From Bruce



Hmmm...If our learned friend Bruce had read all of my post, he would have seen that I am giving leeway to Gilles for his rookie seasons against Reutemann:

From my post on this matter:



and also



Pitting Villeneuve's best season, 1979, against Prost/Senna/Fangio's full careers still doesn't put him in the same league.

A few quotes for the defense:

"The only fault I find in Gilles is when the adrenalin runs high, which is most of the time with him, he is inclined to to things that not only endanger himself, but his fellow drivers" - Bob Walker, F1's most successful privateer in history.

"Villeneuve has a brilliant natural talent. I've always thought very highly about everything about his motor racing - his speed, his car control, approach, enthusiasm. He lives for motor racing and that may be his biggest problem. He drives with enormous aggresion and flair, but he sometimes seems unable to combine that with common sense. I worry for him because sometimes he does things on the track which are not in keeping with his personality off the track. He has a very intelligent and ordered apporach to life, but his performance in the car sometimes belies that." - James Hunt

"Gilles was always putting his foot down and running through the gears. He would change gears without taking his foot off the accelerator...When you do that you use more fuel - like he did at Zolder - and the car tends to break down. He probably felt it was faster, but the fraction it helps isn't worth it. And Monaco has a bump coming out of the corner onto the pit straight. Gilles could go over that flat out so the the engine was screaming and when he hit the other side, the car had wheelspin and jerked the transmission hard. I used to change gears in between to save the transmission". - Jody Scheckter

"Villeneuve's approach to motor racing is possibly too passionate - too instinctive and immediate - to ever bring him a world championship, but it does explain why he is worshipped across the world like not other driver." - Nigel Roebuck.

"My preoccupation was keeping myself alive, but Gilles had to be quickest on every lap - even in testing." - Jody Scheckter

"Everyone agrees that Gilles was always risking more than any other driver. That was how he made his career." - Eddie Cheever

"Unfortunately, he was one of those guys you were always wondering when he was going to have an accident he wasn't going to walk away from." - Jeff Hutchinson.

"Although I don't particularly agree with his daredevil style, he has done more for Grand Prix racing this season than all the other drivers combined." - Frank Williams

"Because I had such a good relationship with Gilles I could talk to him and tell him he was a sily ass. He was intelligent enough to know that it was a stupid thing to do and that you don't last long doing that stuff. But he liked that image of knocking wheels together and the idea of being crazy. He wouldn't admit it was foolhardy, but I think he realized it". - Jody Scheckter talking about aftermath of the Villeneuve/Arnoux duel at Dijon.

"(Gilles had a) lack of mechanical sympathy. When he got the Ferrari 308GTB, he would pop the clutch and spin around in circles. Jimmy (Clark) would never do that". - "Jabby" Crombac

"Gilles wanted to win laps. He didn't really want to win the championship. He was very intelligent, but he wanted the wrong things out of racing. One of the things that made me think I had a chance of winning the championship against Gilles was some of the stupid things he did. In the beginning of my career I think I was as crazy as he was but...you aren't goin to win championships doing that...Gilles was so big on fastest laps that in the race when he felt his tires going off he would dive into the pits, put on new tires, and get fastest lap. I would argue with him, saying you should stay out there with an old set of tires because that's the way you're going to get the best result in the end." - Jody Scheckter



[p][smallfont][Edited by Williams on 01-20-2001][/smallfont]

hello

the idea of the court is really facinating and congratulations for this idea hope it can settle down some of the very hot cases in f1 .

what was the case oh yes about GV .

let me start first by the first three AP fangeo and senna i guess that lots of people will disagree about them they might add clark , brabham moss and we can add lauda as well
but any way lets get to the point .

the question to me is very strange because no body can deny the speed and the guts and the talents that GV had , most if not all of the people that are intrested in f1 would say that he was one of the fastest and toughest on the track.

scheckter , alan jones , keke rosberg and even alain prost admitted the guys talents and speed.

he definitely deserve to be in the best drivers of the f1 in the top 20 lets say and why i say 20 not 3 ?

very well because we cannot deny that there were alot of drivers that deserve to be with fangeo and prost and senna let me give examples

brabham , clark , lauda , stewart , andretti , moss
peterson , dan gurney , alberto ascari ....

yes all of these were very good drivers and the best in my opinion i dont want to tell you that we should make the list out of 50s instead of 20s some of the drivers didnt get the chance to be world champions but they were talented.

any way GV deserve to be in the best with senna and fangeo and also the drivers that i have mentioned but its only his short career that prevented him from adding race wins and maybe titles as well .

we shouldnt forget that senna prost and fangeo drove the best or a winning cars through most of their careers and thatswhy there wins and titles were so lot .

but apart of 79 car and 78 GV didnt have the chance to drive a very good cars.

so statistics would do no good at all to this ultra talented guy .

i guess i have replied to questions but i want to add few things if you dont mind or even if you mind

GV driving didnt help him much to win the title in 79 when you have a very good car and the best car through most of the season you should not put your self in the position were the car might breake because of the continouse push or the situation of getting involved in collissions with others .

so when jody scheckter was so reliable and careful not to damage his car he was in the points but GV was always pushing and thats made him either a winner or out of race or collided with some one ,IMO i think GV could have won the title in 79 if he drove a little bet more carefully but he didnt you might think that he didnt care or he was not angry to lose the title but i remember that i have read that gv was wishing that jody's car would beak in the italian gp so he would won the title but it didnt happen
and at the same time GV wanted the title thats no doubt about it .

dont get me wrong in the 1980 and 1981 cars GV didnt have much of a chance becasue if he didnt push above the limits the car wouldnt have finished on points let alone poduims or wins be cause the cars were so terreble to drive but in a winning car and reliabe like the 79 one i guess there was no point pushing it and put it in retirement just because you dont want to come second and as i said with a little careful driving from GV in 79 he would have won the title thats my opinion and he wanted the title that year.

last thing , what made me change my mind is mika hakkenin he was more than a match to schumacher who most of people think that he is head and shoulders above the rest mika drove wonderfully this year and has beaten shumi and shumi needed all his talents and guts and speed to win the title from him so in my opinion there is no head and shoulders above the rest type of driver never was never will be .

so i would say that GV is one of the top drivers in the history of the f1 but not head and shoulders above the rest thats my opinion .

thanx alot.

Firstly, I want to thank all posters. This is a fascinating and thoughtful debate, and it seems that the Atlas F1 Court is living up to its anticipated promise.

From my understanding, what we have largely seen so far is a debate between talent versus accomplishment (thank you Dave Ware for that thought), with 'accomplishment' being measured by statistics.

What seems to have been overlooked that the accomplishments of the chosen three were achieved by exercising a whole range of talents in addition to being able to control a racing car at the extreme of its limits, which Gilles Villeneuve used to show to the delight and awe of many. Count me in on that after 2 visits to Montreal and an enthusiastic following from the pages of MotorSport.

Another quote about Gilles driving at Monaco from a contempory F1 driver. Sorry, can't remember who said it, or where I saw it.

"Gilles attacks every corner. Nelson (Piquet) attacks the corners that matter." From my arm chair knowledge, attacking every corner would not be the fastest way around the olf Nurburgring. Could have been fatal on the long Spa circuit.

I compare the 'attack' approach to that of Fangio's, which seemed to be to win pole and the race (and in Fangio's day, I suspect winning a Grand Prix was as important as the WDC points attached to it, if not more) at the slowest possible speed. Winning a race at the slowest possible speed meant exercising a whole range of talents related to minimising effort on the part of the driver and his car. When more than efficiency was needed, then we could see life at the limit, for example Fangio's 1957 German GP drive.

The same would be true for the Senna and Prost, though of the three, my arm chair view says that Prost would have been the least likely to 'tiger'. Put Jim Clark in there, then you would have your tiger, and winning at the slowest possible speed.

I argue that the superior results of the chosen three came from exercising a wider range of talents than consistently shown by the heroic Gilles.

I'm not sure about the development thing. Michael Schumacher showed an awful lot of 'savvy' in collecting his first F1 win, outwitting the likes of Senna and Mansell in faster cars. Mind you, he was awfully fast through Eau Rouge, and that with a Ford engine... We didn't have to wait for him to cool his heels before success came.

Lastly, this arm chair follower would like to urge, as in URGE, Don to tell us more of what he SAW. That last post was most unfair, leaving us hanging.

Actually, Don Capps has reminded the court of it's original intent:



Let us begin with 1982 & 1983, 2 years in which Ferrari drivers were categorically successful:

1982:
Didier Pironi: 2 wins, 2 pole positions from 12 GP's - 39 points
Patrick Tambay: 1 win, 0 pole positions from 8 GP's - 25 points
Mario Andretti: 0 wins, 1 position from 2 GP's - 4 points

When you consider that Didier Pironi only competed in 10 races, (he did not start at Zolder and Hockenheim) missing out on the championship by a mere 5 points, it is reasonable to argue that Gilles Villeneuve could have won the 1982 championship. Even the unacccomplished Patrick Tambay scored his first win at Ferrari. To top it off, Mario Andretti, who did a one-off with Williams earlier in the year, came out of Formula One retirement to score a cracking pole position for the Tifosi at Monza. The Ferrari 126C2 was a great race car and it is reasonable to suggest that Villeneuve would have produced the following:

3 wins, 4 pole positions

Throw in a world driver's championship and Villeneuve's legacy would be even greater. But this is not about the Villeneuve, the brilliant racer, so let us move onto 1983:

Rene Arnoux: 3 wins, 4 pole positions from 15 GP's - 49 points
Patrick Tambay: 1 win, 4 pole positions from 15 GP's - 40 points

It is fair to say that Ferrari produced another fabulous race car in the 126C3. Again, the unaccomplised Patrick Tambay scored his 2nd and final victory in a Ferrari and more importantly, tallied an additional 4 pole positions - a testimony to the speed of the Ferrari. Patrick Tambay, who started in 114 GP's, scored his career totals for wins (2) and pole positions (5) at a year and a half with Ferrari from 82-83. Again, I find it reasonable to suggest that Gilles Villeneuve would have produced the following:

4 wins, 6 pole positions

With Rene Arnoux missing out on the championship by 10 points to Lauda, it is reasonable to argue that Villeneuve could have scored a 2nd world championship.

With these tallies, Gilles' statistics would have been:

13 wins, 12 pole positions from 93 GP's

Based on the accomplishments of the drivers who raced for Ferrari in 1982 & 1983, especially Patrick Tambay who was statistically invisible outside these years, and Mario Andretti who came out of retirement to score a pole position, I argue that Gilles Villeneuve would have significantly improved in the categories of victories, pole positions, and of course, world championships - the most important statistic, probably the catalyst for the court to select Fangio, Prost, and Senna as the benchmark for Gilles Villeneuve.

This benchmark is a rather tough one to reconcile. How do we compare Gilles Villeneuve, so intertwined with Enzo Ferrari, to Fangio, Prost, and Senna, who leap frogged from one top ride to the next? The court asks us "to determine whether Villeneuve would have achieved the statistical success of a Fangio, Senna or Prost had he lived to race a full career". But what if Gilles would have joined Williams or McLaren? Imagine if SFW or Ron Dennis was there to temper Gilles' career and harness his talents. The defence has argued and will undoubtedly continue to argue that Gilles Villeneuve was "reckless". I also imagine that the defence believes that Gilles would have never matured his approach to racing. I believe that he would have matured and that Gilles Villeneuve, coupled with competitive machinery, would have been a significant player for the world championships of the 1980's. Having said that, I will not extrapolate the numbers for Gilles Villeneuve in anything other than a Ferrari.

1984. With McLaren riding high, it was a lousy year for Ferrari as Michele Alboreto scored a single win and a pole position with 30.5 points. Arnoux scored 27 points. Gilles Villeneuve would not have been a factor for the championship this year but I imagine he could have doubled the results of Alboreto and achieved 2 victories and 2 pole positions.

1985. A return to form for Ferrari with Alboreto, despite losing out to Prost by 20 points, kept the Frenchman within striking distance for most of the season. Alboreto scored 2 victories with 1 pole position. He also finished on the podium 8 times with 4 2nd place results. Team mate Stephan Johanson scored 27 points and finished on the podium twice, both times in 2nd place. Arnoux, who only raced the opening round at Brazil, finished with a 4th place result. With Alboreto and Johanson finishing on the podium 10 times, it is reasonable to argue that Gilles Villeneuve would have bettered these results with the following:

4 wins, 3 pole positions

Now would Villeneuve have won the 1985 championship? Quite possibly. With Alboreto keeping Prost in check for most of the season, it is reasonable to argue that Gilles would have led a more spirited charge for the title, perhaps joining Piquet and Lauda in shutting Prost out for a 3rd consecutive year.

Recap (after 1985 season):

19 wins, 17 pole positions, 3 world titles, 125 GP's

I imagine the defence will charge this as highly speculative, but it is keeping with the court's objective:



With 3 world championships, Gilles Villeneuve would be viewed in a totally different light - that of a champion. Had Villeneuve's career continued, and had he been afforded the competitive equipment that Prost and Senna enjoyed for the balance of their careers, it is reasonable to argue that not only would Gilles have been a major player during the mid-80's, but that he would have effectively taken away some of the impressive statistics collected by Prost and Senna as well.

Gilles Villeneuve would be 36 going into the 1986 season. Ferrari had some tough years from 1986 through to 1989. 1986 saw no Ferrari driver atop the podium, nor a single pole position. With McLaren, Lotus and Benetton taking victory from Williams that year, I'll argue that Villeneuve could have scored a single victory and a pole position to boot. 1987 saw Ferrari well behind the pace of Williams yet again. Gerhard Berger managed 2 victories with 3 pole positions. Again, Villeneuve would not have been in contention for the championship but he could have bettered Berger's results with 3 victories and 4 pole positions. 1988 saw tremendous domination from McLaren. Had Senna not crashed with a back marker, McLaren would have won all 16 races. Gilles could have at least equalled Berger's tally of 1 victory and 1 pole position.

A driver cannot go on racing forever, so let's argue that Gilles calls it quits after 1988. This would leave him with:

24 wins, 23 pole positions, 3 world titles, 175 GP's

Again, there will be those who will label this as speculation, but this keeps with the court's intent "to determine whether Villeneuve would have achieved the statistical success of a Fangio, Senna or Prost had he lived to race a full career". Given the competitiveness of the Ferrari during the mid 80's, the above numbers were certainly achievable by Gilles Villeneuve. Had Gilles won 2-3 championships, we would not be debating whether or not Gilles deserves to be ranked amongst Fangio, Prost, and Senna. We would most likely endeavour to champion the cause of another driver.

Fangio: 24 wins, 29 pole positions, 5 WDC, 51 DP's
Prost: 51 wins, 33 pole positions, 4 WDC, 199 GP's
Senna: 41 wins, 65 pole positions, 3 WDC, 161 GP's
Villeneuve: 24 wins, 23 pole positions, 3 world titles, 175 GP's

If Gilles never had the accident at Zolder and accomplished the above results given the competitiveness of his Ferrari through the balance of his career, I would statistically qualify him with Fangio, Prost, and Senna. That is a more satisfying result than jumping from one winning ride to the next!

OK, I've resisted so far, since I don't have strong feelings either way on GV but a couple of points do spring to mind.

First, the concept that GV was cut down in his prime doesn't quite ring true - he had 68 'Presences' compared to 51 for Fangio. He died at 32 - Scheckter retired at 30, Senna died at 34. I know he only had 5 active years, but if he was that good why did it take him until 27 to get into F1? For that reason, I refute the concept that he carried 'Unfulfilled Potential'

Secondly, there is, as has been pointed out many times, a world of difference between driving fast and winning. Wasn't it Fangio who said that "...the aim of the race is to win while going as slowly as possible" (apologies if I have mis-atributed). GV's ability as a fast driver are not in doubt - on that point we have an open and shut case. However, the 'Big Three' were great Racing Drivers, not great Fast Drivers and that is an essential distinction.

I also move that the majority of 'expert testimony' and 'witness statements' should be, by and large ignored by the court. It has been correctly pointed out that witness and expert testimony is essential and above all other testimony in a court of law. The poster neglected to mention the word disinterested. Most 'expert testimony' and 'witness statements' to date have been from associates (directly or indirectly) of GV. I would be more impressed by a non-contemporary (eg Ron Denis, MS, even someone like Murray Walker) stating that they felt GV was the equal of the 'Big Three'. I imagine that such information may be a little harder to find, since the 'Big Three' stand so tall over all the other drivers.

Final, objective burst of stats (thanks to http://www.forix.com for the info - % are item/GP started):

GP Starts:
GV 66
AP 199
AS 161
JMF 51

Wins:
GV 6 9.09%
AP 51 25.63%
AS 41 25.47%
JMF 24 47.06%

Podiums:
GV 13 19.7%
AP 106 53.27%
AS 80 49.69%
JMF 35 68.63%

Pole Positions:
GV 2 3.03%
AP 33 16.58%
AS 65 40.37%
JMF 29 56.86%

Front Row:
GV 8 12.12%
AP 86 43.22%
AS 87 54.04%
JMF 48 94.12%

Fastest Laps:
GV 8 12.12%
AP 41 20.6%
AS 19 11.8%
JMF 23 45.1%

Points:
GV 107
AP 798.5
AS 614
JMF 277.64

By any measure Fangio leads the pack, AP/AS are pretty close but in no category other than fastest laps does GV come close - proving he was a phenominally talented Fast Driver and a pretty good but not great Race Driver

Ok no stats, just a comment.

Qualifying is awesome to watch. It's the purest form of racing. Ideally there is no traffic, every car is reliable, it's simply each man versus the clock.

The commentators are a bit of a waste however as they can't just sit there and read the sector times along with the rest of us, instead they have the need to predict the outcome of the split times before they flash up. What you get is one or more of them yelling "he missed the apex!", or "he's putting in a great lap!" or whatever, and it's about 50-50 whether they end up right about the times or not. It seems it is not so simple after all to watch a man drive around the track and judge if he is ahead or behind of the last man through. Which of course is why they time the laps, instead of just having a few pro drivers sit and view the laps and award the pole.

All of which makes me wonder about the validity, and relevance, of the sort of anecdotal evidence we've heard describing how fast GV looked to his contemporaries. I know the racing greats know more about driving than do the commentators on TV - and certainly more than you or I, but are they actually any better at judging the speed of another driver by watching his laps? How would we, or could we know? What counts in racing isn't how you look going through a curve, it's the sum of your times through all the curves that count, plus your ability to manage your car through to the finish line. In the end, it all comes down, not to the praise of others, but to the time on the clock.

I think there has been two kinds of evidence presented in this case, evidence that GV looked fast to his peers, and evidence that he was often outqualified by his teammates. Which should we take as the more valid evidence? It has been suggested that you did in fact had to see GV to understand his speed. I'm not sure why the drivers were convinced, but the clocks weren't, but I know who I tend to trust more.

"Statistics can be misleading, but so can fanatical loyalty"

I challenge you to count Niki Lauda, Jackie Stewart, Fangio, Laffitte, Arnoux and Alan Jone among the ranks of fanatical Gilles fans. That is a ludicrous statement. These were some of the best drivers in the world, they lauded Gilles while he was alive and well and they were being very objective rather than fanatical, as they were drivers themselves. It is not my loyalty or that of other fans I invoked. Simply the opinion of better qualified judges, who had both expertise (because drivers) and lack of bias (because they had no reason, think of Fangio, to prise Gilles, other than expressing their opinion). Sorry, you are off the mark entirely when discounting the opinion of this sort of unbiased experts.

Some points were brought to the court attention which are innacurate as presnted:

"he had 68 'Presences' compared to 51 for Fangio."

Gilles was racing in an F1 were a season was comprised of 15-17 GPs, Fangio raced in an F1 were a season was 7-8 GPs. He became WDC at times with as little as 2 wins, less than Gilles bounty in his 2nd year of F1. Another evidence that comparing numbers for drivers who raced 25 years apart is innacurate and useless.

"The poster neglected to mention the word disinterested"

I fail entirely to see how Fango, Stewart, Alan Jones, etc, would have an "interest" in celebrating Gilles Villeneuve and while he was well and alive. What the poster forgot to mention is that an opinion from MS on the subject would be utterly useless, as the German was 14 years old when Gilles died.....and might have never seen him race. Jackie Stewart and Manuel Fangio are to me as qualified as witnesses as one get get: expert and unbiased.

After reading the following item, I was forced to say something:



This remark is an excellent example of 'temporal chauvinism.' It clearly reflects the failure to grasp the concept that his making "F1" was a remarkable happenstance in the first place. That he went almost straight from Formula Atlantic to "F1" and performed so well is pretty amazing. It clearly displays the current trend to use current criteria to judge those of the past, which in this case makes little sense.



In Formula Atlantic Villeneuve was just incredible. He was capable of performing feats that few could imagine much replicate. He was clearly a stand-out and a man possessed of talent that even the blind could see. When I saw him in the 1975 & 1976 seasons I expected him to be either dead soon or to become World Championship. Only Keke Rosberg was remotely in the same category and the only one besides Villeneuve that truly impressed me with his driving skills.

These statistcs that everyone keeps quoting are just sheer, utter nonsense. They no more capture the essence of the man than a paint-by-number set allows you to appreciate a Degas or a Van Gogh. So many of you are missing the entire point of why Villeneuve still holds sway over so many of us normally rational people who are almost fanatical in this seeming irrational belief about Villeneuve's talent. In action, live, on the track, he was just that different from the rest. Neither Prost and certainly not Senna da Silva ever remotely impressed me in the way Villeneuve did. Neither can Prost nor Senna da Silva remotely hold a candle to Villeneuve or Rosberg in my book. No doubt they were good, but not in the same magical way Villeneuve was.

Fangio was the Genuine Article. I did see him race and he was absolutely amazing. Only Alberto Ascari and Stirling Moss came close at the time -- or since. And I did see them both in action as well. This is not a dig at anyone, but often we reject the past because we live in the present and the future. I did not appreciate Tazio Nuvolari and Bernd Rosmeyer until later. The same with two other great drivers: Bill Vukovich and Jimmy Bryan.

I had absolutely no intention of ever re-entering this "discussion" but the feeling I get is that many have no idea about real racing is all about. It isn't all this silliness about wins or statistics, it is that real magic that happens in a racing machine on a track. The myopia that the "best ever" put their butts into an "F1" machine is likewise flawed.

However, since I am threading the needle dangerously close on becoming in contempt of this court, I shall decease and desist. Again, I fully appreciate that opinions are of no value, but I was provoked into making a comment.

Redfever is of course correct that my comment about fanatical loyalty does not apply to the majority of quotes he and others have provided about GV. I did not mean to imply the experts opinions about GVs ability should be ignored, just that they cannot be viewed out of context - the actual qualifying and race results.

No one responded to my numbers from the 1981 results, so at the risk of beating a dead horse let's look again.

First 7 races, GV wins qualifying 6-1.
Last 8 races, GV and DP split 4-4.

I've seen the JS vs GV qualifying battle explained as a near rookie matching the WDC in speed. In this version GV isn't actually the fastest driver in F1, but he's getting there, already able to be as fast as JS after only 20 races. Now can someone explain how on earth DP was taking qualifying sessions from GV in 1981? The two drivers had the same experience in F1 and it was DPs first year at the Ferrari to GVs third.

Amadeus- a read of Villeneuve's biography will acquaint you with the facts regarding his late start in F1... it has more to do with the fact that he is, in the truest sense a self made man as anything else... Trust me, if her were not a SUPERLATIVE driver he would never have made it to F1 - can you name another driver who jumped straight from Formula Atlantic cars to Formula One? Both Prost and Senna were supported in their careers by their parents... GV's Da was a piano tuner - not really the sort of career that earns enough money to buy race cars... in fact, you'll find that at one point, GV sold his house to buy a Formula Atlantic car to stay in racing... as to age - Fangio was 39 when he started his "official" F1 career... so is it impossible that GV would have raced until he was 38? 40? 42?

Regardless, the stats that matter are that GV jumped from Formula Atlantic straight to F1 (with a brief stint in Can-am cars...)

He won a race in his first full season - in a car that did not win the constructor's championship - who else has done that? Micheal Schumacher springs to mind. Senna came close. Prost didn't

He won 3 races in his sophomore season and challenged for the WDC, finishing 2nd by 4 points... who else has done that? Jacques Villeneuve has done him one better - acheiving similar status in his first year, and winning at his second try, but I'm sure most would agree that JV had an advantage in what he was driving... who else? Nobody springs to mind for me, if you ignore the early 50s...

After a disasterous 1980 season, he won 2 races in a car which the "next fastest man of the time" Didier Pironi, could drag no higher than 4th once and 5th 3 times.

What more does he need to do? Remember, this thread is not about whether you approve of GV's style or not, it is about whether he deserves to be seated amongst three other greats. You'd deny him because he had a crappy car in 1981 and 1982 which basically shoots his stats all to hell? Or because he got beaten by Jody Scheckter to the WDC when he was a little more than 1 and a half years out of Formula Atlantic????

Tough crowd....

The biggest problem with Gilles' racing philosophy was his short-sightedness. "What makes you think I will be around next year ?" he once asked a friend. As has been pointed out, Gilles was not interested in winning races or championships, but laps.

Gilles was a perfect example of a man likened to a brightly burning candle, which gives a lot of light but does not last as long. Part of the reason for his speed on the track was his willingness to take risks. Of course you can enter a corner faster than another driver, if you are willing to go closer to the edge of control. While this is fine for qualifying, most drivers acknowledge that it is necessary to step back a bit for racing conditions, in order to leave your self a bit of safety margin and allow for the longer term task of completing the race. Gilles did not seem to be interested in this approach, and he paid for it with lost points and, eventually, his life.

This attitude would have hurt him in several areas if he had lasted longer on than he did, which is the question being examined here.

Testing: Gilles did not take the long-term view of developing the car. While he was sometimes cooperative with the team in finding solutions to problems on the car, his main reason for showing up at the test track was to drive the car fast. While this is also useful for testing, it is sometimes not what is required. A typical example of Gilles attitude toward car development was one time when the car was at a track particularly ill-suited to the car, and the team was interested in getting in laps during the race to test some ideas ("think of it as a 300k, test" he was told), Gilles passed three cars on the first lap then put it into the guardrail. A great racing story, but not a contribution to the long term prospects for the team.

Finding the right car: Gilles had a strong sense of loyalty to the team, and was not motivated to look ahead to the next season, and so remained at Ferrari for his entire career. Fangio, by contrast, was adept, and ruthless, when it came to selecting the right car for next season. Senna told Lotus, the team which gave him his first real shot at Formula One, even before he signed, that, if the car did not suit his needs, that he would leave the team. Gilles was handed a lucrative offer by McLaren, and was going to accept, but, unwilling to face the Old Man to say that he was leaving the team, decided to stay with Ferrari.

Calculating the risks: Gilles was absolutely fearless in a race car, as attested to by Sid Watkins, who shows heart rate charts in his book indicating Gilles eerie calmness under drving conditions compared to other drivers. This gave Gilles a performance edge, but also cut his chances of surviving to enjoy a long, fruitful career. Successful drivers, like Niki Lauda and Alain Prost, tended to weigh the odds a bit more, balancing the risks against the potential gain, eventually becoming 3 and 4-time champions respectively.

An interesting and relevent recent quote from Alain Prost on the question of whether fear affects a driver's performance:



[p][smallfont][Edited by Williams on 01-23-2001][/smallfont]

From RedFever:


This is why Gilles cannot be cannot be considered among Formula One's greats. Tazio Nuvolari raced in a time when drivers did not race for points, but for glory and prize money. This put the emphasis on winning. Gilles was racing in the wrong era, an era that demanded a longer term strategy and a consistent accumulation of accomplishments, not a win-or-crash philosophy.

Even a another great driver known for his incredible speed over a single lap said that "You need a lot of concentration for (qualifying), as well as instant reactions, so a lot of tension goes through the body - like electricity. In race conditions, though, you can't keep to that level. There's too much stress, both physical and mental, so you have to be content to come down a little bit." That was Ayrton Senna speaking.

Since the goal of a Formula One driver is to win Championships, that is how they should be judged, and Gilles short-sighted attitude toward racing was ill-suited for that arena.

I would say that the comments made by other drivers after Gilles' death should probably be discounted because they will ALL say he was wonderful, fastest ever, etc. out of respect.
Sounds harsh, but dying always improves the public perception.

Also, it was Piquet who won the championship in 83 not Lauda and since Arnoux was in my opinion at his best that year I see no evidence to suggest that GV would have been much faster. Sure I believe he probably would have been a bit faster, but I'm not that sure.
That 10 point gap is a bit misleading because Nelson could easily have won in Kyalami that year if he had wanted to adding another 5 points to the gaps to Prost and Arnoux.
(He only needed 4th place to overtake Prost in that race).

And since Ferrari went into decline afterwards I think it is fair to say that he would not have acheived much success without moving team, and in that case no-one can guess at where he may have ended up.[p][smallfont][Edited by BT52 on 01-24-2001][/smallfont]

A few points I would like to raise.

Qualifying: During Gilles' era, qualifying was a bit of a lottery. They used super-soft qual. tyres that lasted only 2-3 laps, so a driver on a hotlap was "forced" to keep it going at all costs, and if you met traffic, you were screwed. As such, no driver really accumulated many pole positions during this time. This was also the reason that GV, and every other driver, was often beaten by a slower teammate. In their tim together Arnoux outqualified Prost many times, even though Prost dominated the results. If instead of the positions, you look at average position or average time gap, Gilles dominated over Pironi.


Testing: GV was actually an excellent test driver from 1980 on. The Ferrari's problems were 100% design-related, and as much as GV had driving talent, his 5ths in 1980 and podiums and wins in 1981 were also due to some "magical" race setups. During those bad years, there are annectdotes of GV spending 15 hour days at tests, napping in the cockpit as mechanics tried endless configuartions in a hopless attempt at finding speed. When they were finished, they'd tap him on the side of the helmet, and he'd blast off, do 4-5 laps, come back in and say "No good, try..."

Gilles was very mechanically aware. When he was racing Formula Atlantics he was a one man team, he drove himself and his car to races in a dilapitated school bus, made repairs to the car in the back, where the seats had been ripped out. This was in stark contrast to the driver he replaced, Nikki Lauda, who until later in his career, knew very little about the cars he drove and treated his mechanics with disdain.

Calculating Risks: I've shown that through 68 GP's Prost and Senna both had:

1) better average cars
2) More driver errors (spins/crashes)
3) More retirements

So Gilles was actually better at calculating risks than those two were earlier in their respective careers. He overstepped his limits less often than them, and his legendary style had no more detrimental effect on his cars than either Prost or Senna had for theirs. Nikki Lauda in in prticular was pretty wild early in his career, 7 crashes and 19 retirements to GV's 7 and 17.

Finally, I'd like to add some "fun facts" about GV's life/career.

At 14, one of the 1st times ever in a car, he stole his uncle's car and took it for a joyride, that included a police pursuit. The cop car ended up with its wheels in the air, stuck in a ditch. Gilles was home free, but returned to see if they were OK and was busted. ( kind of a metaphor for his career...)

Despite no schooling past 16, he designed and built himself a new formula 1-style wishbone suspension system for his snowmoble, which he took to 2 straight WC's.

He was so poor when he was starting out, that he sold his only posession, a small trailer when his wife and Jacques lived, to purchase his F. Atlantic car. they had to go live at Joann's parents while Gilles was out on the road.

His total lack of financial support meant that he had to steal tools and things as simple as screws from Canadian Tire, to make repairs. Later in his career, he ordered his manager Gaston Parent to send a check for $6000 to the company, to repay the stolen merchandise. When they recieved the offer, they negotiated for the use of GV in their ads instead!

During his years at Ferrari, he was offered to drive a special stage of the Italian Rally. At his first try in a rally car, he won.

He also raced against an Italian Airforce jet, over 1 mile, on a runway, using his 1979 Ferrari. The jet won twice, so Gilles had all the wings removed from his car and beat it on the third run!

In answering to BT52 post, 90% of the comments from top drivers of the past were done when Gilles was already alive. Particularly Stewart was commeniting on Gilles as being exceptional already in 1979!!!! therefore, BT52's point should be dismissed as incorrect.

Now, the question is "Should Gilles, based on his talent and driving skills, be compared to the great 3 JMF, AP, & AS???" Was he limited by poor equipment, which prevented him to win more? was his untimely death the REAL reason why his numbers don't reflect his huge talent???"


Now I have thinking particularly about point #3: if he didn't die, he would have had a 126C2 in his hands, a car that a couple of races after Gilles death, became the best car that year, allowing even Patrick Tambay to win his first race. Considering Ferrari had good cars also in 83 and 84 enough to allow Tambay, Arnoux and Alboreto to win races, it goes by itself that Gilles would have won as well (he always won in any season his teammate won a race, even when his teammate didn't win any races in one occasion).

So, I am clearly convinced Gilles numbers average bacause he died after only 4 seasons in F1. As a result, I drew a comparison to the great 3 aforementioned and wondered....what would have happened if Fangio, Prost and Ayrton Senna would have died in an accident after only 4 full seasons in F1? would they still be considered All Time Greats from a STATISTICAL point of view, so dear to too many posters here unable to see talent unless it's typed in nicely ordered colums???

Here is my findings:

JM Fangio
2 Times WDC
13 wins

Verdict: although reduced in stature from a statistical point of view, his career would still be impressive. Having raced in similar cars before F1 officially started and being equipped with enourmous talent, he would still be considered an all time great. Maybe not the greatest as he is still considered.


Alain Prost
Zero WDC, 1 time runnerup (just like Gilles)
9 wins

Verdict: clearly Prost would become a footnote in F1's history had he died after 4 seasons in F1. He won no WDC titles and managed to win 9 races (3 more than Gilles, but he also never drove anything as bad as a T5 or 126C). Discreet results, would have not even made a Top 20 list in terms of wins. His legend would have never been created and nobody would know what the term "The Professor" means when referred to F1.



Ayrton Senna da Silva
Zero WDC, one time 3rd in the WDC
6 victories

Verdict: Senna would have been another obvious driving talent who loved to push the envelope and drive at the limit, but never managed to "materialize" his talent in solid results. A 3rd in the WDC his best display and with no team orders to penalize him, only 6 wins. Very fast driver, particularly on a single lap as demonstrated in qualifying, he lacked consistency to win races and score more points. He was fast and talented, but not WDC material. Just like Gilles, who had done better than Senna at least in the WDC ranking.


The analysis above clearly demonstrates that cutting someone's career short to only 4 full seasons, will cause their stats to be lower than their potential and talent. Only Fangio's legend would have survived, although seriously reduced (2WDCs is not like 5 in anyone's book). If we want to use numbers and must use stats, then let's compare the only numbers that matter, the first 4 full seasons in F1 by all these great drivers. Gilles did just like evryone else, even better than Senna, thank you very much.

The gist of the argument against Villeneuve so far amounts to these;

He doesn't have the statistics of Prost, Senna or Fangio, thus he should not be included.....

It's hard to have the statistics when you don't have the car. Prost Senna and Fangio all were blessed with dominant cars in their careers. I'll arbitrarily define "dominance" as a season in which a single constructor won 75% or more of the races... Fangio had the dominant car in 1950,(6 wins in 6 races) 1954,(6 wins from 8 races) and 1955,(5 wins from 6 races) admittedly, in Fangio's case 1954 was an example of his car being dominant largely by his hand alone.

Prost had the dominant car in 1984 (12 wins from 16 races, of which 7 wins were his) and in 1988 (15 wins from 16 races, 7 of which wee his)

Senna had the 1988 season (15 wins from 16 races, 8 wins of which were his) in a dominant car.

Now, interestingly, not only did GV never race in what could be called a dominant car, but a dominant car did not appear to exist in the entire time he raced! Even if he had sidled to another team as some suggest he should, he would not have been seating himself in a situation like the ones Senna, Prost and Fangio had...In 1978, 4 different teams won races, and Lotus won the most, with 8 from 16. In 1979, 5 different constructors won races with Ferrari wining one more race than Williams, with 6 wins, 3 for JS, 3 for GV - 6 from 17. In 1980 4 constructors won races, Williams winning the most with 6 from 14, and in 1981, 6 constructors won, with the most dominant being Williams with 4 (!) wins from 15 races.

All of this points to a parity that did not exist for large parts of Fangio's, Prost's and Senna's careers. How was GV supposed to rack up points like JMF, AP and AS when he did clearly not havethe dominant equipment required to acheive dominant points?

Gilles was too aggresive/crazy/mechanically unsympathetic

Fine. However, look at it. If he was not he would not have finished second at Dijon in 1981 (it is notable that JS, who criticised him for his tactics in this race finished out of the points...). He would likely not have won in Spain in 1981, or finished 3rd in Canada in the same year. Certainly there are examples of his aggression costing him points such as at Zolder in 1979, but I have the feeling that if GV had NOT driven as he did, he would still be being criticised for the same dearth of points/races wins per starts. Think about it. For every race he pushed to hard and dusted a car, there is another where, had he not pushed, he would not have acheived the result he did.

GV is praised because he died racing and people want to be polite

Tripe. Many of the comments posted here are culled from when he was alive. Also, if all dead grand prix drivers are "overpraised" where are all the drivers saying that Ronnie Peterson was the fastest/most talented/on a different level/one of the all time greats ?

GV didn't race as slowly as possible/only raced to make fastest laps and win

So? It was effective, wasn't it? Again, had he not raced as he did do you think that his stats would be that much more impressive? Unlikely, given that, again, many of his wins and successes were acheived in his characteristic style. Also, we are arguing about placing GV WITH the other three, not asking if he subscribed to the same ideals as them.

GV couldn't set up a car for toffee

The Ferrari's were evil handling cars, and all the cars that GV drove had horrible handling. This was systemic. Ferrari believed that the chassis was something to put wheels on and an engine in. End of story. Thus, the Ferrari's were always amongst the worst handling cars on the grid... Now, it's one thing for MS to come toa failing Ferrari team as a white knight and revamp the team - it would have been quite another for GV to tell Mr Ferrari how to design his cars.... The fact that GV had as much success with the cars as he did, actually argues that he actually could set them up half decently - just not so as you would notice, given the superiority of the other manufacturer's chassis's.

With this, I will argue once again, that Gilles Villeneuve deserves to be considered amongst the all time greats. He was considered the fastest of his day, his early statistics are breath-taking in their context and his later statistics even more so given the cars he drove. He is the closest thing we have seen to a "pure racer" in F1 in the last 30 years, and as a tribute to him said "we will not see his like again". If statistics are the only thing by which we are allowed to judge, I suggest that the top 3 as they are stated here be re-considered - and if anything but statistics are allowed to enter than I find it hard to believe that GV could legitamitly be refused inclusion, given the universal acceptance that he was quite simply the fastest man in F1 in his time - perhaps ever - and the testimonials that have been given him by his peers.

With that, I will retire from what I think is becoming an elliptical conversation.

OK - I know I'm going to be accused of 'not getting it because I haven't seen him race', and indeed, like MS (now that's something I never thought I'd say!) I am unqualified to express an opinion because I was 10 when he died (as opposed to 14 for MS), but!!!!!!

"Temporal Chauvinism"! Wow! With the greatest respect to a forum host I would argue that
is a clear example of 'temporal chauvinism'. You are correct - I didn't seem him race - many had that pleasure and I wish I had, but seeing video footage rather than live action does not disqualify me from holding an opinion. That said, when in a cyber future I am arguing that MS is an all time great I can (and will!) use that argument! Memories, and nostalgia have a way of imposing halos. Distance distorts perspective. You are correct - it is ridiculous (if fun) to speculate on how Fangio would have coped on a grooved tyre, or how MS would deal with a front engined Bently. You cannot "use current criteria to judge those of the past".

What you can do is compare there actual achievments against thier peers - men who ran in comparable machinery. The clock - and by extension Record Books - never lie. Over an extended period luck balances out and talent comes through, and if you cannot judge a driver by his performance against his peers then you cannot judge him.

So, one last stab - these numbers are not made up, and in the interests of good statistical practice (yes, I have had training) they are clear, and easily repeatable (www.forix.com, select side by side and put in the names).

Driver....Races....Won....Podiums....Poles....1st Row....Fastest Lap
A.....82.......11(25%)...21(15%)...13(28%)...23(11%).....9(2.4%)
B.....115......22(19%)...42(36%)...20(17%)...47(41%)....19(16.5%)
C.....66.......6(9%).....13(20%)...2(3%).....8(12%).....8(12%)
D.....107......9(8%).....41(38%)...10(9%)....32(29%)....14(13%)
E.....130......1(.7%)....15(11%)...3(2%).....5(3%)......3(2%)
F.....92.......10(10%)...23(25%)...14(15%)...24(26%)....8(8%)
G.....176......14(8%)....36(20%)...13(7%)....42(24%)....10(5%)

(apologies for the grotty formatting but I'm no typist)

Driver A active for 4 years
Driver B active for 7 years
Driver C active for 5 years
Driver D active for 6 years
Driver E active for 7 years
Driver F active for 6 years
Driver G active for 17 years

Going by numbers alone it looks like Driver A is the pick of this bunch - and he is a Villeneuve - but it's JV. The others are:

Driver A J Villeneuve
Driver B Damon Hill
Driver C G Villeneuve
Driver D David Coulthard
Driver E Rubens Barrichello
Driver F James Hunt
Driver G Graham Hill

So what have I tried to prove?

That the limited time that GV raced generated % ratios which are a valid measure of his ability as a Racing (not just fast) Driver.
That the % that he generated are obviously influenced by the quality of his car, but that other drivers in equally poor machinery (the BAR for Heavens sake! And the Arrows that Damon was in) were able to generate stats at least his equal

Going by these numbers they all look like equals (with the possible exception of RB)- which is as it should be. Think coldly and logically and you will see that above we have a mix - talented men who many feel underperformed to thier vast ability (Hunt, GV), jouneymen in great machinery (Damon, DC) or a bit of both (the immortal JV!)

This is an unanswerable case - the GV fans will go round and around with 'soul of racing' and 'he went sideways!' arguments and the GV doubters will retort with 'sideways isn't first!', 'the clock doesn't lie'. Ultimatly it comes to your racing preference - Chapman, manager of Arsenal in the thirties was told his team (who were quite succesful)were boring to watch - his response - "You want entertainment - go watch the clowns"! I love to watch JV race - anyone who will crash at Eau Rouge to win a bet off a mechanic is fine by me - he is entertaining and drives like we would all love to. He is his father, writ smaller. People loved GV for the same reason.
But, put yourself in Ron Dennis or Ross Brawns shoes. You have a choice of Fangio/Senna/Prost or GV for a seat in your race car. Who are you going to put in there?



I love the clowns, but silverware is what counts.

Amadeus statistic is actually even less reliable and meaningfull (meaningless, is the word) than any stats used already. Arbitrary % and weights are completly useless and the court should dismiss tehm as unsubstantiated evidence.

Also "I didn't seem him race". Sums it all......

In my opinion -- learned or otherwise -- I absolutely fail to make any sense or to even grasp the point to this entire case. It is just streams of mind-numbing statistics and counter jabs with more streams of mind-stupifying statistics. Somewhere in there the person has gotten lost.

Bah Humbug and horse dunk! I am sorry I wasted my time with this whole nonsense. What a bunch of tripe! Reading through this not only gives me a headache, but makes me want to gag. Apparently there is this idea that you can quantify someone like Gilles. Just because you can reduce the Mona Lisa into digital format -- qualifiable entities -- and count the pixels and the quantify the variations of the pigment of the paint and the shading and other aspects that you can quantify and then compare these quantifiable elements with other works by Titian or Botticelli or Van Gogh or Klee or even Jasper Johns mean that it makes any sense to do it or if there even a rationale for doing so? The Mona Lisa stands on its merits just as, say, Sunflowers does. Y'all are so intent on the data you forget to look at the man.

Again, Bah Humbug and horse dunk!

Ok, qualifying and fastest laps were a lottery in 1981, 1979 doesn't count because GV had less experience than JS, plus the team asked GV not to try and pass JS in the dying laps of the WDC clinching race. (GV set his fastest lap on lap 42 of 50 so he wasn't following JS dutifully for more than the last few laps.) 1978 doesn't count because GV was a rookie, 1980 doesn't count because the car sucked, and despite only scoring 6 points in 4 races in 1982, including a spin from the lead in Brazil, we must conclude GV was about to storm to a string of WDCs. Fine.

To me the most impressive arguments I've seen for GVs brilliance are the statements offered by fellow racers (the favorable ones) and his two wins in 1981. I will concede that many drivers who watched GV race thought he was a very fast driver, and a very hard racer.

The race wins in 1981 have been described as truly great drives in a truly inferior car. Can someone shed light on the following issues?

Spain - GV leads a string of five cars to the finish with a gap of 1.24 seconds first to fifth. His own fastest lap was set on lap 6, and from lap 14 to lap 80 he keeps the vastly superior cars behind him without ever setting the fastest lap, yet without ever blocking the cars behind him. It's a great accomplishment, but I just can't accept it was done without blocking. I know how close two cars are in corners that are .5 seconds apart, I don't know if I've ever seen three cars within .5 seconds with another two in the next .5 seconds. I wouldn't say HHF is a great driver for holding off JV lap after lap at Indy.


Monaco - Piquet leads 53 laps and spins. Jones leads 54-72 before getting passed by GV who leads 72-76. Jones drops 40 seconds in the last 4 laps to GV. Did he get lost or have car trouble? Jones fastest lap (48) was 1.5 seconds faster than GVs fastest (71). It looks like the Williams and Brabbam drivers either broken down or spun, leaving the 4th fastest man in first place. It's not GVs fault they had problems, but it's not like he beat them with speed in a fair fight. I wouldn't say HHF was a great driver for outlasting the faster cars at France and Italy in 1999.
[p][smallfont][Edited by George Bailey on 01-25-2001][/smallfont]

That's not fair, I said that comments made by other drivers AFTER Gilles died should not be taken too seriously which clearly does not include comments made when he was alive !!!