20 replies to this topic

[Megatron]

Granted, he came to Williams in 1983 (after having a previous stint in the 80s) when the turbos were dominating and in 1984 Honda were still working out the bugs, but I always thought of Jacques Laffite as a pretty decent driver, but he didn't even score a podium and went "home" to Ligier. What happened?

[fines]

Frog syndrome, perhaps?

[Witt]

His foray with williams didn't start too badly. Admittedly, he was no where near Rosberg's pace. He did actually officially score a podium in his first race at Brazil, after Rosberg's disqualification. He also led for quite a while in Long Beach, and ran a strong second in Monaco, i think even catching rosberg at the time, until his car broke. He was almost a regular in the points until half way through 83 when it started going pretty badly. The turbo's were entirely dominating by the half way mark of 83, and to compound the bad matters for Williams, the circuits didn't exactly suit Cosworth powered Williams in the second half of the season. Perhaps they are some of the reasons?

However, he didn't make the grid in the European GP at Brands, whilst Rosberg and his other team mate for that race, Johnathon Palmer did qualify. He also DNQ'd at Monza, whilst Rosberg qualified 16th.

I wasn't a fan back then, but have been recently watching races from the 83 season. Overall, i get the feeling the team just focussed more on Rosberg, and for good reason too. Had Williams had a turbo for 83, things would have definitely looked better for Laffite in hindsight. The cosworth was just not good enough in 83, and Laffite being too old to really want to throw the car around as Keke did, he didn't really have a chance once the turbo's started dominating. IMHO, Laffite can be classed as one of those drivers who just hung around too long, for the love of the sport. He was still capable of good results when the car was good, but as i said, not willing to take the risks like Keke did to make the car go faster in 83. Perhaps someone can inform us what the media reports were saying about the situation back then, to give us a better understanding.

As for 84, it's a season i don't know too much about. Probably more of the same for Laffite. A new engine, the lead driver getting the new parts all the time, and perhaps Jacques just wasn't prepared to do the hard yards like Keke did?

[Chris Bloom]

I remember reading an interview with Laffite, I guess it must have been Autosport. It was either towards the end of his Williams career or after it and he seemed to suggest that he wasn't being given the same treatment as Keke.

Chris

[deangelis86]

I think it was pretty obvious that Jack Lafferty wasn't getting the same treatment as Keke. Mind you, that's probably for a good reason, as the car 1983 car wasn't amazing and the 1984 car was pretty awful by all accounts.

It needed someone to really put their balls on the line to wring out any sort of performance, and Rosberg was just the man. I don't think that Jacques had that sort of comittment or a 'scruff of the neck' driving style. On his day though, a pretty smooth and fast driver.

[BRG]

Originally posted by Witt
IMHO, Laffite can be classed as one of those drivers who just hung around too long, for the love of the sport.

That does not really sit well with the fact that in his final season with Ligier, until his accident, Jacques was looking like a potential winner again.

I suspect that the Williams "Sod you, you're just the driver" human resource management style did not get the best out of Lafitte, especially when paired with someone like Rosberg who was much more from the mould of the sort of driver that Frank and Patrick like (eg Jones, Mansell, Montoya)

[ensign14]

Is it just me, or does anyone else think Laffite would have been World Champ in '81 if Ligier used a Cosworth? I cannot believe the Matra was as good, and Jacques destroyed his team mates that year, who couldn't get a point between them

[rallen]

I remember reading an interview with Laffite, I guess it must have been Autosport. It was either towards the end of his Williams career or after it and he seemed to suggest that he wasn't being given the same treatment as Keke.

Chris

Not heard this before- wasn't Williams 'problem' that they never really had a number one - resulting in Piquet leaving because he was unhappy Mansell got equal treatment.

[chr1s]

Granted, he came to Williams in 1983 (after having a previous stint in the 80s) when the turbos were dominating and in 1984 Honda were still working out the bugs, but I always thought of Jacques Laffite as a pretty decent driver, but he didn't even score a podium and went "home" to Ligier. What happened?

He was on the podium at the Nurburgring!

[hogstar]

I think Williams were looking for a solid number two, Laffite was a known property and had drove for Frank in the early part of his career. While it wasn't the most inspired appointment the team had ever made you can kind of see where the team were coming from.

However, the cars in the 83/84 weren't great. The cars needed to be driven by the scruff of their neck which didn't suit Laffite's style and favoured Rosberg, though far from ideal. The FW08C was underpowered and suffered from handling problems and the **** box of 84's FW09 had every problem going with it's 'all or nothing' Honda engine and Head's mysterious disregard for carbon fibre at that time.

The team were in transition and Laffite was in the right team and the wrong time, but you could never see him beating Keke, with or without the team's help.

[scheivlak]

Not heard this before- wasn't Williams 'problem' that they never really had a number one

In 1981 they had one....

[hogstar]

In 1981 they had one....

Carlos didn't play ball, as I recall, much to the chagrin of Jones...

[HiRich]

I remember reading an interview with Laffite, I guess it must have been Autosport. It was either towards the end of his Williams career or after it and he seemed to suggest that he wasn't being given the same treatment as Keke.

Chris

I recall very clearly a case where Jacques had used the T-car (set up for Keke) in a practice or qualifying session. The change was made late, too late to make many adjustments. Jacques set some decent times, much more competitive to Keke than he had been. The reporter was surprised to find him spitting blood rather than happy - the car was still fitted with Keke's (short-stroke?) engine, which had WAY more power than the nail's Jacques had been supplied with. And once you realise that you're being screwed over, you're hardly going to put your life on the line are you?
I am pretty certain this would have been in Autosport, and it stuck in my mind because I was a Rosberg fan.

[Henri Greuter]

Is it just me, or does anyone else think Laffite would have been World Champ in '81 if Ligier used a Cosworth? I cannot believe the Matra was as good, and Jacques destroyed his team mates that year, who couldn't get a point between them

Ensign14, we have had many differences of opinions over the year. But for this one: You could be right with that.
Lafitte's 1981 season is much underrated against the performances of Reutemann, Piquet, a tiny lesser extend Alan Jones, the arrival of Alain Prost and the sheer bravado season of Gilles.


henri

[hogstar]

I recall very clearly a case where Jacques had used the T-car (set up for Keke) in a practice or qualifying session. The change was made late, too late to make many adjustments. Jacques set some decent times, much more competitive to Keke than he had been. The reporter was surprised to find him spitting blood rather than happy - the car was still fitted with Keke's (short-stroke?) engine, which had WAY more power than the nail's Jacques had been supplied with. And once you realise that you're being screwed over, you're hardly going to put your life on the line are you?
I am pretty certain this would have been in Autosport, and it stuck in my mind because I was a Rosberg fan.

This wouldn't surprise me either, but it was not unusual for the Cosworth teams to have the number one driver to have a more 'favourable' development engine than the other from time to time. For '84 however, this would of been very unlikely with the Honda, though one can never be sure.

[KWSN - DSM]

I always question the stories of drivers getting sub-standard equipment in F1. It makes zero sense to employ a driver, and then do all you can to not score as high as possible. I am not questioning the idea or fact of a number 1 driver getting new development before the number 2 driver, but having different engines and lessor cars in general simply does not make any kind of sense.

I liked Laffite I just think that he was a less talented driver than Rosberg and was exposed as such when teamed with him.

[Michael Ferner]

It does make sense, though: you have an amount of x GBP to spend overall, now are you going to spend 50 % on each car, or are you going to go that extra mile with the driver you think most likely to deliver the goods?!

[kayemod]

It does make sense, though: you have an amount of x GBP to spend overall, now are you going to spend 50 % on each car, or are you going to go that extra mile with the driver you think most likely to deliver the goods?!

True, and 'development' DFVs were very scarce and closely guarded, I don't think any team had enough for more than their no. 1 driver. That was why McLaren started their own programme with Nicholson-McLaren Engines.

[Nigel Beresford]

It does make sense, though: you have an amount of x GBP to spend overall, now are you going to spend 50 % on each car, or are you going to go that extra mile with the driver you think most likely to deliver the goods?!

Sorry, but it doesn't make sense to me. It certainly doesn't come down to a matter of spending more money on one car over another - I don't know how that would even work in practice - make parts in titanium for the "no.1" car and in steel for the "tugger"? I don't think so - racing team production departments aren't set up like that. In the Formula One and Indy/Champ car teams I've worked in the two (or three) cars have always been prepared to the same standard and spec. Any (very rare) departures from this philosophy would simply be due to lack of time to make two sets of parts, and I honestly can't actually recall an occasion when that happened. At Penske Racing it was typically a matter of courtesy that, since he was the boss, Roger's car would get the best engine, but that was only a matter of a couple of horsepower difference and not something one would care to raise a fuss about. Differences between cars are much more subtle than a spec difference between individual components. For example, it is sometimes the case that nominally identical wing assemblies, in spite of very careful production and assembly, will perform slightly differently. The forces they generate are high, and so very minor tolerance variations will create measurable performance differences. In that situation the "best" driver will get the "best" parts, but if the drivers are closely matched then it ail come down to a toss of a coin (metaphorically speaking) or else someone will make a management decision. Similarly, if one driver is in the Championship hunt and the other (perhaps equally talented) driver has suffered difficult circumstances then the former might enjoy the "benefit" of lower mileage parts being used on his car if it's a matter of choosing how to allocate nominally identical components, but even that more of a historical rather than contemporary point since reliability these days is so much better through the use of FEA, rig testing and proper lifing regimes.

I'm kind of more in accord with "KWSN-DSM" on the whole "sub standard equipment" theories. Certainly, given the effort it has always taken to field a team, it's never made any sense to me for a team to somehow "disadvantage" itself, but then again maybe that's part of the difference between top teams and the rest.

[Ross Stonefeld]

I think in the modern era, in F1, it's 'easier' to do. They go through development parts a lot more rapidly and especially a few years ago engine upgrades were more pronounced(?). Even as recently as 2009 when they had to qualify on race fuel loads, at McLaren they were giving Lewis Hamilton the preferred stratey and parts when there was a shortage. Which you can understand. Equally you have sympathy for teammate Kovalainen who would struggle to get back to parity once 'behind'.

And while it was always a personal hunch, it seemed like in the Stewart GP and Jaguar era one car always seemed to do better than the other. Drivers had a little bit to do with it because they didn't always have two of equal performance.

Edited by Ross Stonefeld, 23 July 2013 - 22:21.

[hogstar]

Placing the bigger teams with 'better' DFV/DFY's was no different to the bigger teams having better tyres, very common in the GoodYear days.

It was logical that Rosberg would get development pieces over Laffite. Even for a team like Williams in '83, they didn't have huge budgets and had to spend wisely.