42 replies to this topic

[rallen]

Hi guys, just looking for your views or superior knowledge . When I was younger I grew up with a soft spot for Damon Hill, I thought in 1994 dealing with what he did, a difficult car, death of Senna, becoming team leader, broken team etc and also and some of his racing performances against such pressure in only his 2nd full season which I really admired him for. In 1996 I though he was again very impressive (and would have won 9 times if his engine had not gone bang in Monaco - the same as Mansell in 1992)

However in 1995 he was disappointing, two of the black marks against his name were Germany where he spun off on lap 2 and Italy where he hit the back of Schumacher taking them both out whilst trying to lap Taki Inoue. Recently though I was reading about this season and it said that in Germany his drive shaft failed which spun him off, I haven't heard this before and always thought it was a driving error. In Italy I have also read that Inoue said that it was his fault and he slipped in front of Hill putting him off (never seen this in the footage I will admit) after which Schumacher apologised to Hill (this doesn't sound like Michael!) Anyway if both these accounts are correct they redeem his season a bit, though I can see why Williams decided to replace him after 1995 - though I wonder if they would have done that if his team mate Coulthard had been more consistent himself? I do think his performance in 1994 deserved a longer stay of execution.

Anyway, are these incidents correct - I have my doubts though I would like to believe them!
What are your thoughts on Damon's performances in 1995? and the 1995 season in general?

[GoShow]

As far as I can remember, both accidents where driver error's by Damon. As I'm not a Schumacher fan 1995 was a hard year to watch Schumacher just showed that he was world class, beating Willams again in a car that wasn't as good. 1995 was memorable cause Jean Alesi won his first and only Grand Prix. And the good, but underrated Gianni Morbidelli scored a podium in Australia in the Footwork.

[Gabrci]

If I remember correctly, he also retired because of driving error in Silverstone, at the Nürburgring and at Suzuka - so 5 times out of the last 10 races.

It certainly was the low period of an otherwise not really accident-prone career (apart from 1999).

[Rob]

The press were hounding him in 1995. From the beginning at Brazil, the press were saying that Frentzen was signed and sealed at Williams.

Still, he went away at the end of the year and vowed to enjoy racing again. Seemed to do the trick.

[Michael Ferner]

I turned from a Schumacher fan to a Damon Hill fan in 1995, mostly because I couldn't stand the German's hypocrisy any longer, but also because Hill in an inferior car gave Schumacher a hell of a fight. Damon was puzzled about Hockenheim, which was unusual - normally, he would admit a simple mistake, but there was also smoke coming from one of his rear wheels (not the tyre) at the start. Alas, I don't know what really happened. Italy looked suspiciously like a brake test courtesy of Michael, and Silverstone was clearly Michael's fault, too - he closed the door. Actually, that was the very race that prompted me to switch camps.

Edited by Michael Ferner, 03 January 2010 - 01:36.

[Ivan]

Italy looked suspiciously like a brake test courtesy of Michael, and Silverstone was clearly Michael's fault, too - he closed the door. Actually, that was the very race that prompted me to switch camps.

Taki actually let Michael through but didn't see Damon (so he says). And Damon forced his way through and missed his braking point. Even though I also thought it was a brake test until I really looked at why Taki was there. Silverstone was Damon's fault, he was too far back and should have known that Michael was going to shut the door.
I have been a Damon fan from the beginning though. Always thought he was top notch.

[Milan Fistonic]

...However in 1995 he was disappointing, two of the black marks against his name were Germany where he spun off on lap 2 and Italy where he hit the back of Schumacher taking them both out whilst trying to lap Taki Inoue. Recently though I was reading about this season and it said that in Germany his drive shaft failed which spun him off, I haven't heard this before and always thought it was a driving error.

It was a mechanical problem that caused his spin in Germany. That was confirmed by Williams in a press release several days after the event.


Murray Walker made a good point in his summary of the 1995 season.

"... I think the way Damon was pilloried by the media was out of order. If he hadn't been trying to pass he'd have been called a wimp, and let us not forget that for two years he has been the only one to even remotely challenge the undoubted master, Michael Schumacher."

[alfredaustria]

The accident in Germany was definitely a mechanical failure: Patrick Head confirmed that few weeks later. What made me sad, was the reaction of the German visitors in the first corner: They waved the Schumacher-flags and shouted with joy, although they did not know if Damon is injured.
For the 1995 season and for Damon's view I can recommend his book: "F1 Through the eyes of Damon Hill". Very worth reading.
Regards from Austria - Alfred

[GoShow]

I turned from a Schumacher fan to a Damon Hill fan in 1995, mostly because I couldn't stand the German's hypocrisy any longer, but also because Hill in an inferior car gave Schumacher a hell of a fight. Damon was puzzled about Hockenheim, which was unusual - normally, he would admit a simple mistake, but there was also smoke coming from one of his rear wheels (not the tyre) at the start. Alas, I don't know what really happened. Italy looked suspiciously like a brake test courtesy of Michael, and Silverstone was clearly Michael's fault, too - he closed the door. Actually, that was the very race that prompted me to switch camps.

Hill in an inferior car to Schumacher? The Williams chassis was clearly better then the Benneton. And this comment is not coming from a MS fan.

[Gabrci]

What made me sad, was the reaction of the German visitors in the first corner: They waved the Schumacher-flags and shouted with joy, although they did not know if Damon is injured.

Just for the record, the same happened at Silverstone in 1999.

[Michael Ferner]

Hill in an inferior car to Schumacher? The Williams chassis was clearly better then the Benneton. And this comment is not coming from a MS fan.

That is ridiculous. Benetton didn't have a single mechanical retirement during the whole season (if we accept that Schumacher in Hungary was actually classified as a "finisher"), while Williams (even without Damon at Hockenheim) had seven!!!

The Benetton was a straight forward development of a five-year-old design, virtually bullet proof, while the Williams was a radical new departure, and it showed.

Edited by Michael Ferner, 03 January 2010 - 12:00.

[GoShow]

That is ridiculous. Benetton didn't have a single mechanical retirement during the whole season (if we accept that Schumacher in Hungary was actually classified as a "finisher"), while Williams (even without Damon at Hockenheim) had seven!!!

The Benetton was a straight forward development of a five-year-old design, virtually bullet proof, while the Williams was a radical new departure, and it showed.

I meant that the Williams was the FASTER car!

[Rob]

I meant that the Williams was the FASTER car!

Given that the Benetton also had the Renault engine, I don't think it's quite as simple as that. I think they were much more evenly matched than they get credit for.

[GoShow]

Given that the Benetton also had the Renault engine, I don't think it's quite as simple as that. I think they were much more evenly matched than they get credit for.

Yeah, more evenly matched, but the Williams chassis was slightly better.

[rallen]

Given that the Benetton also had the Renault engine, I don't think it's quite as simple as that. I think they were much more evenly matched than they get credit for.

I have never understood the theory/fact? that the Williams was the better car in 1995 - there were mechanical failures etc but also, considering how good Damon was in 1994 with a to start with evil handling car - it got the better of Senna and in the race that it (I had better say 'possibly') killed him, Damon set the fastest lap! Never got how Hill could be so good with a bad car and then apparently have the best car and have a poor season! doesn't seem to add up.

I am not disputing it but I would like to understand where this opinion comes from. Anyone fill me in. I remember watching that season and the Benetton looked like it was on rails!

Having said that I was also suprised how poor Coulthard was that season and didn't understand how there was such a fuss and a tug of war for his services between Williams and McLaren!

[ebeneezer2]

I think it's based on the fact that Herbert was generally qualifying around 7th or so, given that Herbert wasn't a complete mug, that suggests the Benetton in 95 wasn't a match for the Williams. There are quotes from Berger, who drove the 95 Benetton at the end of the season, saying that he couldn't understand how Schumacher challenged for the championship with it. Also, Hill was often a match for Schumacher pacewise in the races but kept finishing behind him and getting himself into trouble in the 2nd half of the season - I'm not saying all of these are Hill's mistakes but just off the top of my head:

collision with Schumacher at Silverstone
2nd lap spin in Hockenheim
collision with backmarker at Spa
hitting Schumacher at Monza
letting Schumacher by too easily at Estoril
colliding with Alesi, losing his nose cone, then later crashing out of race at Nurburgring
hitting the back of someone (Irvine I think) but getting away with it at Aida
running into the gravel, losing his nosecone, then getting a pitlane speeding, then spinning out altogether at Suzuka

There were also a few slanging matches with Schumacher and the team too...it was a very gloomy season for Hill indeed, though possibly as a result, as this thread seems to demonstrate, it made a lot of people root for him a bit more in 1996 because of it!

[Mansell4PM]

Just for the record, the same happened at Silverstone in 1999.

It did indeed - to the eternal discredit of the British fans. On this occasion Schumacher WAS injured too.

Although in no way a justification for their behaviour, I wonder if the end of the 1998 British Grand Prix influenced the fans a year later. I was there in 1998 and the bafflement (and a degree of anger) at Schumacher having won in the pits, despite a penalty, was palpable.

Going back to the original question about Hill, was the issue of what happened at Monza with Schumacher and Inoue ever caught on camera? The BBC never seemed to have any footage at the time. IIRC the Williams had been a little bit of a handful at this corner - did Hill not hit a pile of tyres (placed behind the kerb) a few laps earlier?

[Rob]

I think it's based on the fact that Herbert was generally qualifying around 7th or so, given that Herbert wasn't a complete mug, that suggests the Benetton in 95 wasn't a match for the Williams.

I think that's more down to Williams working as a team while Benetton were split down the middle. Herbert got no data at all, whilst Schumacher got all of Herbert's.

[ebeneezer2]

Well, in terms of outright pace, Hill and Coulthard ran at a similar pace to Schumacher over the course of the season. I'm not an MS fan or anything, but to me, that suggests that the Williams was a better car than the Benetton - everyone can draw their own conclusion though!

[midgrid]

Going back to the original question about Hill, was the issue of what happened at Monza with Schumacher and Inoue ever caught on camera? The BBC never seemed to have any footage at the time. IIRC the Williams had been a little bit of a handful at this corner - did Hill not hit a pile of tyres (placed behind the kerb) a few laps earlier?

Video (German commentary)

Inoue let Schumacher pass him around the outside of the Curva Grande, then moved across the track to the inside line approaching the second chicane, which was sufficient to distract Hill enough to cause Hill to miss his usual braking point and hit Schumacher. There were no tyres on the kerbs; these were introduced in 1996.

Regarding the B195 vs. FW17 debate, I've been reading Maurice Hamilton's Frank Williams biography/Williams team history, in which Adrian Newey (Williams's chief designer at the time) says that "The FW17 was, generally speaking, a bit quicker than the Benetton. But we just didn't get it together."

Edited by midgrid, 03 January 2010 - 18:43.

[kayemod]

Well, in terms of outright pace, Hill and Coulthard ran at a similar pace to Schumacher over the course of the season. I'm not an MS fan or anything, but to me, that suggests that the Williams was a better car than the Benetton - everyone can draw their own conclusion though!

Also, you have to bear in mind that Schumacher's 'team-mates', Herbert and Brundle especially, have always said that they were given cars that were less good than his. I think there's some record of Brundle testing the MS car and being astonished at the difference, Johnny Herbert said similar things in a recent 'Lunch with' feature in MotorSport. Equality didn't figure very highly at Benetton in those days, apparently.

[Rob]

Also, you have to bear in mind that Schumacher's 'team-mates', Herbert and Brundle especially, have always said that they were given cars that were less good than his. I think there's some record of Brundle testing the MS car and being astonished at the difference, Johnny Herbert said similar things in a recent 'Lunch with' feature in MotorSport. Equality didn't figure very highly at Benetton in those days, apparently.

Herbert got very little testing during the year. I know he argued for a more equal split but was fobbed off with various "excuses".

[GoShow]

Also, you have to bear in mind that Schumacher's 'team-mates', Herbert and Brundle especially, have always said that they were given cars that were less good than his. I think there's some record of Brundle testing the MS car and being astonished at the difference, Johnny Herbert said similar things in a recent 'Lunch with' feature in MotorSport. Equality didn't figure very highly at Benetton in those days, apparently.

True, same with Jos Verstappen in '94. That's Mr. Briatore's way of working...

[kayemod]

Herbert got very little testing during the year. I know he argued for a more equal split but was fobbed off with various "excuses".

Always seems to be like that doesn't it? I hope Nico Rosberg has a good contract. I'm sure I read somewhere that it said that Nico wouldn't be paid any less than his team mate, so if Schumacher is on something over £6 million, supposedly Nico is as well, pretty good going for a driver with his slightly patchy record, especially on race performances. I hope he gets equal treatment as far as the cars go, I'd love to eavesdrop his Dad Keke's comments.

[ebeneezer2]

I dunno, when Lehto subbed for Schumacher at Monza and Estoril, I assume he was given Schumacher's car - yet he was nowhere with it as well. While I could understand that Schumacher may have got first call on any new upgrades or tweaks, I find it very hard to believe that they'd build two fundamentally different cars, there would be no incentive to do anything as inconvenient as that. As far as Benetton was concerned, Schumacher was just a driver and I'm sure they'd rather have had two cars fighting for the wins.

What may have skewed things a bit was that Schumacher's driving style was rumoured to be unusual - he thrived with cars that other drivers described as 'nervous' - since he was clearly the faster driver, development and setup work was probably geared towards getting the best lap time out of his driving style, possibly to the detriment of the team mates' needs. The other factor was probably the team mates getting completely demoralised. Benetton does have quite a history of unhappy drivers, I suspect that given the circumstances, a lot of Schumacher's team mates were not performing at their peak while they were his team mate.

Edited by ebeneezer2, 03 January 2010 - 19:59.

[schtix]

It's also worth mentioning that the Benetton pit crew destroyed the Williams team during pitstops that season. It was only the 2nd season of refueling and Ross Brawn had drilled his team to perfection. On more than one occasion Schumacher was able to over come on-track deficits to Hill simple by beating him out of the pits.

Edited by schtix, 03 January 2010 - 20:27.

[wepmob2000]

I seem to recall that most of Schumacher's team-mates from the Benetton days have described the car as being pretty evil-handling and very nervous. Schumacher could clearly cope with that and extract the maximum from the cars, he may have even preferred the handling like that. As Schumacher was undoubtedly the star of the team there would have been less incentive to rectify this, the cars may even have been engineered to suit his preferences. On paper the FW17 might have been the faster car, but it could be argued that the B195 was faster if driven by Schumacher. Certainly this seemed to often be the case after the first three races of that season.

[ensign14]

It's also worth mentioning that the Benetton pit crew destroyed the Williams team during pitstops that season. It was only the 2nd season of refueling and Ross Brawn had drilled his team to perfection. On more than one occasion Schumacher was able to over come on-track deficits to Hill simple by beating him out of the pits.

It was almost as if Benetton had some extraordinarily fast fuel rig or something.

[Vitesse2]

It was almost as if Benetton had some extraordinarily fast fuel rig or something.

[tongue firmly in cheek] Surely you're not accusing that nice Mr Briatore of cheating? [removes tongue from cheek]

[sherer]

It was almost as if Benetton had some extraordinarily fast fuel rig or something.

was just going to say the same thing. Although I thought by 95 they had the same rig as the others.

Did they do any other cheating in 95 ?

You do have to wonder who good Schumachers teammates would have been if they had access to both sets of data like he did rather than just their own.

[Michael Ferner]

Video (German commentary)

Inoue let Schumacher pass him around the outside of the Curva Grande, then moved across the track to the inside line approaching the second chicane, which was sufficient to distract Hill enough to cause Hill to miss his usual braking point and hit Schumacher. There were no tyres on the kerbs; these were introduced in 1996.

Regarding the B195 vs. FW17 debate, I've been reading Maurice Hamilton's Frank Williams biography/Williams team history, in which Adrian Newey (Williams's chief designer at the time) says that "The FW17 was, generally speaking, a bit quicker than the Benetton. But we just didn't get it together."

Thanks for the link, that was interesting watching it again!

I'm still undecided. While it looks in the onboard footage as if Damon might have missed his braking, the camera from the entry to Roggia appears to show Schumacher moving at the same speed as Inoue, who was offline and being lapped! Perhaps he was trying to block Damon's way past the backmarker? Anyway, I'm not buying that Damon was distracted - not at the point of braking, anyway.

As for the relative merits of the Williams and Benetton in '95, they were pretty well matched regarding speed, with a slight edge for Williams perhaps, but the reliability of the Benetton marks it out as the car to have. How anyone can say they were equal, or that the Williams was even better is beyond me. But, hey, who am I to spoil a good story with facts?

[Gabrci]

As for the relative merits of the Williams and Benetton in '95, they were pretty well matched regarding speed, with a slight edge for Williams perhaps, but the reliability of the Benetton marks it out as the car to have. How anyone can say they were equal, or that the Williams was even better is beyond me. But, hey, who am I to spoil a good story with facts?

Hill retired in Brazil and in Canada due to mechanical failure.

Schumacher lost a win in Canada (finished fifth at the end) and retired in Hungary due to mechanical failure.

Sounds 2-2 to me.

The Benetton was indeed the car to have, providing your name was Michael Schumacher. Otherwise, not.

[Rob]

Hill retired in Brazil and in Canada due to mechanical failure.

Schumacher lost a win in Canada (finished fifth at the end) and retired in Hungary due to mechanical failure.

Hill also retired in Germany and lost second place in Spain due to mechanical failure .

[alfredaustria]

I watched this video from the Hill/Schumacher incident again and again. And now it seems to me that Schumacher slowed so much, hoping that Inoue comes between him and Damon. I don't think that Damon was too fast to get the corner! Again one of the dirty tricks of Schumacher.
The Austrian commentator (Heinz Prüller) blames only Damon for this incident, and furthermore he says Schumacher has done everything right. And that is what came to press the next day...

[Gabrci]

Hill also retired in Germany and lost second place in Spain due to mechanical failure .

Sorry, he did indeed lose 3 points in Spain as well. Germany I don't think we'll ever know.

But anyway, I don't really think it's worth to talk about who lost 3 points where, the Williams was so obviously faster than the Benetton all through the year.

[Der Pate]

The Austrian commentator (Heinz Prüller) blames only Damon for this incident, and furthermore he says Schumacher has done everything right. And that is what came to press the next day...

As much as I like Heinz Prüller...when it comes to talking about Schumacher, he spoke about him as if he was a god...it made me crazy...

[rallen]

So is it misleading to go on about the so called advantage of the Williams if it's reliability wasn't as good as the Williams pit crew and strategy was totally thrashed in every race by Benetton, surely that more than evens things out?

But anyway, what do you make of Damon's form that season? always found it a bit of a puzzel.

[Gabrci]

But anyway, what do you make of Damon's form that season? always found it a bit of a puzzel.

Yeah, me too, particularly in the second half of the season. I guess the frustration that he can't beat Schumacher even with a superior car might have got the better of him. But he collected it up well next year and even if he made it a bit more difficult for himself than necessary, he did what he had to do at the end.

[rallen]

Yeah, me too, particularly in the second half of the season. I guess the frustration that he can't beat Schumacher even with a superior car might have got the better of him.

Hmm, not sure it was that - he was too cool under pressure and a lot more pressure in 1994. It is almost like his 95 season should have been his 94 season and his 94 season should have been his 95 if you see what I mean. He was better and then got worse. hmmm. I am not sure we have heard the full story of that season, or perhaps we have and he simply had a bad few races and was excusable in at least a couple of others (Germany and Italy) where he may even have won.

[rallen]

Video (German commentary)

Inoue let Schumacher pass him around the outside of the Curva Grande, then moved across the track to the inside line approaching the second chicane, which was sufficient to distract Hill enough to cause Hill to miss his usual braking point and hit Schumacher. There were no tyres on the kerbs; these were introduced in 1996.

Regarding the B195 vs. FW17 debate, I've been reading Maurice Hamilton's Frank Williams biography/Williams team history, in which Adrian Newey (Williams's chief designer at the time) says that "The FW17 was, generally speaking, a bit quicker than the Benetton. But we just didn't get it together."

Thanks for the clip, I forgot how close some of the racing was that year. As for the book, would you recomend it as a read?

[Michael Ferner]

I guess the frustration that he can't beat Schumacher with a superior car might have got the better of him.

Exactly. If the cars had been equal, he'd have been better motivated.

[midgrid]

Thanks for the clip, I forgot how close some of the racing was that year. As for the book, would you recomend it as a read?

It's a good read: it's not particularly in-depth and most of it consists of contributions from former and present team personnel, drivers and so on (but including most of the big names, including Patrick Head and Frank and Virginia Williams), so it's really a book of reminiscences with Hamilton providing a brief narrative overview for each chapter. It's still very entertaining and full of interesting information, though, even if it isn't a definitive team history.

[juicy sushi]

I seem to recall that most of Schumacher's team-mates from the Benetton days have described the car as being pretty evil-handling and very nervous. Schumacher could clearly cope with that and extract the maximum from the cars, he may have even preferred the handling like that. As Schumacher was undoubtedly the star of the team there would have been less incentive to rectify this, the cars may even have been engineered to suit his preferences. On paper the FW17 might have been the faster car, but it could be argued that the B195 was faster if driven by Schumacher. Certainly this seemed to often be the case after the first three races of that season.

I can remember Michael saying he liked the "pointiness" of an F1 car, and didn't like driving other types of race cars because they weren't quite like that (which would indicate he liked his cars on the nervous side), and I remember that while Berger said those things about Schumacher's Benetton set-up, Alesi really liked it, as he preferred an over-steering car as well. I remember Michael's comment on that year's Ferrari (the last with a V12) after driving that was that he couldn't understand how Alesi and Berger hadn't been a lot more successful...