95 replies to this topic

[sofarapartguy]

After watching it again I must admit that Jerez'97 was an outstanding pass.. So sudden but so brave. Only a couple of drivers could've considered about doing such a move, and only a few actually did it.

[Wingcommander]

I've always had soft spot for JV. To me he was the guy capable of fighting with Schumacher at a time, when Michael seemed to be head and shoulders above everybody else. I wouldn't say he was the best rookie ever, because his first season (like pretty much his whole F1 career) was quite inconsistent. But he made the kind of impact on the sport, that i don't think i've seen ever since. He definitely had the talent to be a multiple champion, but unlike the usual drivers who tend to become better with experience, Jacques never really matured to the consistent top driver people expected him to become at the start of his career. I guess the only way for me to describe Villeneuve is that he was an extremely talented and brave driver, who never seemed to capitalize on his potential.

[JForce]

This has been done to death - search the Atlas archives and you shall see JVi fans being schooled by the Todd's of the world - his 1997 championship win was an embarassment to Williams along with everyone else involved. The titles should have been wrapped up by midway through the season - a car that much better than anything else on the grid should have allowed a great driver to dominate. That JVi managed to win the title at all is I suppose a minor miracle, but a good driver would have given that car the year it deserved.

[iotar]

JForce, on Jun 7 2012, 10:01, said:

This has been done to death - search the Atlas archives and you shall see JVi fans being schooled by the Todd's of the world - his 1997 championship win was an embarassment to Williams along with everyone else involved. The titles should have been wrapped up by midway through the season - a car that much better than anything else on the grid should have allowed a great driver to dominate. That JVi managed to win the title at all is I suppose a minor miracle, but a good driver would have given that car the year it deserved.

Is this equivalent of nostalgia in internet discussions? "Schooled by Todd's of the world". Huh? Sounds like quality arguing. I think I'll pass on this opportunity of classic board time-wasting.

[FenderJaguar]

Nice to see so many have positive memories of Jacques in F1. About arguments if he was a genius, great, good, poor, bad, useless I've always felt that it is related to what you want to see in motorracing. In my mind he was a breath of fresh air well needed in F1.

[TheBunk]

JForce, on Jun 7 2012, 10:01, said:

This has been done to death - search the Atlas archives and you shall see JVi fans being schooled by the Todd's of the world - his 1997 championship win was an embarassment to Williams along with everyone else involved. The titles should have been wrapped up by midway through the season - a car that much better than anything else on the grid should have allowed a great driver to dominate.

If he didnt get shoved off the track at Melbourne and San marino, this is what would happened, and he probably wouldv won nine instead of seven gps during that season. Thats a much higher than average number. Nothing to be embarrassed about, especially since it was only his second year in F1. How many times did we not hear how Hamilton was still a rookie and will mature at howlers during 2008 and 2009?

Villeneuve made 3 mistakes during the season causing a retirement, and, okay, got dsq at Japan. Thats hardly any worse than the average other champion.

Edited by TheBunk, 07 June 2012 - 10:58.

[kryziuotis]

JForce, on Jun 7 2012, 12:01, said:

This has been done to death - search the Atlas archives and you shall see JVi fans being schooled by the Todd's of the world - his 1997 championship win was an embarassment to Williams along with everyone else involved. The titles should have been wrapped up by midway through the season - a car that much better than anything else on the grid should have allowed a great driver to dominate.

Who was Heinz-Harald Frentzen then who only managed to get half as many points as Schumacher with such a dominant car? Basically all these statements that 1997 Williams was a dominant car is nonsense. Yes, it still was the best car this season but nowhere as dominant as some Williams previous years and without Villeneuve they whouldn't have won championship at all.

[PNSD]

PoleMan, on Jun 7 2012, 01:19, said:

Bunk, BIG UPS to you for starting this thread!

JV was an amazing driver from his CART days, to Williams & BAR in F1, to Le Mans. People may forget, but when Trulli was tossed in 2004 and Jacques was dropped in with just 1 test session (believe that's correct) for Renault, it took him until just the 2nd race to outqualify Fernando. And in the season finale in Brazil, his fastest race lap was less than a tenth off Alonso. Just 3 races, and he was coming to grips with a new car after being off for the whole season.

JV was special, alright! So nice to read so many comments that give him his due. It was Jacques' entry into F1 that finally restored my passion for the sport after being gutted by the loss of Senna.

I hope he can find his way back into a regular ride, because there is nothing that boy can't drive fast...while entertaining us all as well. But even if he can't, he's still had a brilliant, Hall-of Fame career!

Edit* The video in this link typifies JV's "on the edge" style from Formula Atlantic to Champ Cars to F1. As you'll see it didn't always work out, but was always exciting to watch!

[TheBunk]

PoleMan, on Jun 7 2012, 00:19, said:

Bunk, BIG UPS to you for starting this thread!

JV was an amazing driver from his CART days, to Williams & BAR in F1, to Le Mans. People may forget, but when Trulli was tossed in 2004 and Jacques was dropped in with just 1 test session (believe that's correct) for Renault, it took him until just the 2nd race to outqualify Fernando. And in the season finale in Brazil, his fastest race lap was less than a tenth off Alonso. Just 3 races, and he was coming to grips with a new car after being off for the whole season.

JV was special, alright! So nice to read so many comments that give him his due. It was Jacques' entry into F1 that finally restored my passion for the sport after being gutted by the loss of Senna.

I hope he can find his way back into a regular ride, because there is nothing that boy can't drive fast...while entertaining us all as well. But even if he can't, he's still had a brilliant, Hall-of Fame career!

Edit* The video in this link typifies JV's "on the edge" style from Formula Atlantic to Champ Cars to F1. As you'll see it didn't always work out, but was always exciting to watch!

Thanks. I think he had a great career just the same, despite it going off post-2000. The more I read back and compare his stats, the more impressed I get.

Only thing missing is a season in a Ferrari. Who knows, if Massa doesnt perform like he did at Monaco...;)

[malibu]

Outstanding driver. A true gladiator ! He had that extra that few drivers have

Edited by malibu, 07 June 2012 - 15:30.

[MortenF1]

I fondly remember his qualifying laps on Imola in '99, in the first B-A-R, 'cause they were wild!
Hockenheim '98 has also been mentioned and indeed that was one of his best GP-weekends, if not the best. Trimmed off rear-wing each time he went out in qualifying, each flyer crazier than the last.

[hammibal]

Ross Stonefeld, on Jun 6 2012, 13:29, said:

I think Hamilton had a better rookie year than Villeneuve. Mainly because Alonso is a little better than Hill.

Plus Villenueve had a better car

[hammibal]

Alexis*27, on Jun 6 2012, 14:49, said:

I think Villeneuve just ended up in the wrong era. He was great in the 96 and 97 wide slick cars, but seemed to suffer in the twitchy narrow tyred era.

I would have loved to have seen him in the late 80s against other ballsy drivers like Senna.

Well Hill wasnt in the same league as Senna and lets not forget that Hill deservedly beat Villenueve

[aditya-now]

hammibal, on Jun 7 2012, 18:51, said:

Plus Villenueve had a better car

Plus Villeneuve was better.

Yet, the similarities are there, both brought a mighty breath of fresh air into the sport.

Edited by aditya-now, 07 June 2012 - 16:58.

[1Devil1]

It's sad that every rival schumacher had in the 90's was not good enough, had the best equipment and suddenly after his first retirement we have a bunch of wonder boys. Villneuve was very good driver, quick and with the ability to show top-class overtakes, with the right equipment he was strong and you can the same about Vettel or Hamilton. Villneuve had only two years material which was ready to fight for wins and he delivered unlike Frentzen or Irvine. He only suffered really badly in rainy condition - he was never that good in those situations. I never had this soft spot for him, his behavior torwards Michael in and after his career were respectless and way off sometimes, but every time I feel ashamed when somebody is using the Schumacher-Law of the 90's. Because he was too good, everybody was an amateur he was fighting against, same thing for Hakkinen as I mentioned in the other thread. I respected Villneuve as a great rival

Edited by 1Devil1, 07 June 2012 - 17:01.

[aditya-now]

PoleMan, on Jun 7 2012, 02:19, said:

JV was special, alright! So nice to read so many comments that give him his due. It was Jacques' entry into F1 that finally restored my passion for the sport after being gutted by the loss of Senna.

Exactly same sentiment here, to me the sport nearly died with Senna, and JV brought some magic back!

[hammibal]

HaydenFan, on Jun 6 2012, 15:10, said:

I don't know about the first part. Outside 2 retirement early in the season, JV's season wasn't much different that Hamilton's. Jacques also won in his 4th GP, whereas Hamilton took 6 GP's to score a win. Villeneuve's first career race started with a pole and runner-up (w/ Fast Lap) to his teammates by 38 seconds, whereas Lewis' first race started with a 4th and ended up 3rd, 18s. behind; 11s behind his teammate.

Lewis' first bad race was the wet EuroGP at Nürburgring, Round 10 on the year, infamous for his being placed back on the track by the tractor lift whereas Speed was left in the gravel. JV's first bad race was the 5th race of the year at Imola, where a puncture from Alesi's car cause his to struggle for the rest of the race, before retiring.

The second part is what makes Lewis' rookies season look better. Beating your 2 time defending champion teammate is a big deal. But I will argue (mostly for the sake of argument), that it is not as big of a deal because Alonso was also new to McLaren. Hill was in his 4 season with Williams and was undeniably the lead driver of the team. McLaren, that year, almost from the start was attempting to give their drivers equal footing. Hamilton, IMO, had control of that team from day 1. And that conflict made for great television, it hurt the potential of what was the best car on the grid that year.

The bolded bit is ridiculous, also Villeneuve was given equal opportunity to Hill, Williams dont do #1 drivers and only certain drivers expect that kind of treatment

[aditya-now]

hammibal, on Jun 7 2012, 19:00, said:

The bolded bit is ridiculous, also Villeneuve was given equal opportunity to Hill, Williams dont do #1 drivers and only certain drivers expect that kind of treatment

I really love Williams for his no-nonsense approach when it comes to #1 #2 drivers. In case of McLaren it is clear that the team was capable of delivering top jobs to Hamilton and Alonso alike, yet it is clear that Ron Dennis was leaning towards his golden boy ("we are racing Alonso!").

Williams never had that emotional personal side, although it was clear that many drivers self-destructed vis-a-vis the almighty standing that Alan Jones had left in Frank Williams mind. I am also sure Frank really dug jacques, but never to the extent that Ron was mixing up the atmosphere with his boy Lewis against Alonso.

[as65p]

Villeneuve always reminds me a bit of Gerhard Berger, in their approach to racing. Both got a kick out of the danger element, more so than most other drivers I think. With JV it was clearly visible in Spa when he tried his Eau Rouge heroics every year (at a time when it was still dangerous to go flat there).

[TheBunk]

aditya-now, on Jun 7 2012, 17:57, said:

Plus Villeneuve was better.

[1Devil1]

I read an article about Schumacher and Villneuve having drinks at the night after the jerez crash. The hotel lobby closed their bar and both decided to plunder the mini bar to have some drinks together in the lobby with their friends. later the hotel manger said - all right we will re open the bar and Michael and Jacques mixed together heavy alcoholic drinks - seems to be a funny story, but only read it once in a german paper. anybody know this story as well?

http://www.faz.net/a...er-1383430.html

[aditya-now]

Jacques on the similarity of his and Lewis' early career in his own words:

Jacques: "I don't know. I did change team when everything went wrong so that is different. He is still in the team where he is protected, the team which gave him the Championship and he is still fast. I have never really known him personally so I really don't know how he has evolved psychologically and what could have happened through those years but obviously it has had an effect, something has happened.

"His driving has changed, every year it seems to be a little bit different, either his drive or his passion, something changes every year - it comes back, it goes away, so that's a little bit strange. We don't seem to get a constant."

Taken from

http://www1.skysport...-Villeneuve-Q-A

In fact, Jacques is going to be a co-commentator on SkySports this weekend, this will be something to relish!!!

Also, quite interesting how Jacques points to the "flickerness" (on off on off on) in Lewis' career - the big consistency doesn't seem to be there, it's always something different with Lewis, obviously he is listening to his many outer advisors and many inner voices....

[Myrvold]

Con1, on Jun 7 2012, 02:25, said:

I don't think Villeneuve deserves to be mentioned in the same bracket as Hamilton. He was up against two WDC in Schumi and Hill. Hamilton is competing against 5 other champions.

Uhm, Villeneuve drove against other champions as well, so, either you got to count them as well, or take their debut season, when it was only one other former champion on the grid for both.

[halifaxf1fan]

aditya-now, on Jun 7 2012, 15:25, said:

Jacques on the similarity of his and Lewis' early career in his own words:

Jacques: "I don't know. I did change team when everything went wrong so that is different. He is still in the team where he is protected, the team which gave him the Championship and he is still fast. I have never really known him personally so I really don't know how he has evolved psychologically and what could have happened through those years but obviously it has had an effect, something has happened.

"His driving has changed, every year it seems to be a little bit different, either his drive or his passion, something changes every year - it comes back, it goes away, so that's a little bit strange. We don't seem to get a constant."

Taken from

http://www1.skysport...-Villeneuve-Q-A

In fact, Jacques is going to be a co-commentator on SkySports this weekend, this will be something to relish!!!

Also, quite interesting how Jacques points to the "flickerness" (on off on off on) in Lewis' career - the big consistency doesn't seem to be there, it's always something different with Lewis, obviously he is listening to his many outer advisors and many inner voices....

There will be an overabundance of interesting JV'isms come Monday. I wonder if any one will be left unscathed?

Edited by halifaxf1fan, 07 June 2012 - 18:50.

[hammibal]

Ferrari_F1_fan_2001, on Jun 6 2012, 18:03, said:

Hamilton was groomed for F1 at an early age. Had vast experience of single seaters in Europe etc.

JV on the other hand came from CART and set the world on fire.

P123, on Jun 6 2012, 18:45, said:

JV did spend many years in European F3 racing, but only stood out once he went to the US and raced in CART.

I guess it sounds better Villenueve coming from nowhere and being immediately a winner

TheBunk, on Jun 6 2012, 19:13, said:

8 points difference in the last race. Villeneuve qualified on pole, messed up his start, and while Hill was leading, retired. 'And now i have a lump in my throat' said Murray Walker.

The talent that is Damon Hill never qualified off the front row, won half the races, i believe retired from one or two races whilst leading, thats how good the Williams was, a better car than the 2007 McLaren, and lets not forgot in their brief spell together Damon was half a second a lap slower than Senna.

[TheBunk]

hammibal, on Jun 7 2012, 19:11, said:

The talent that is Damon Hill never qualified off the front row, won half the races, i believe retired from one or two races whilst leading, thats how good the Williams was, a better car than the 2007 McLaren, and lets not forgot in their brief spell together Damon was half a second a lap slower than Senna.

Hill and Hamiltons stats arent that far off eachother. 22 wins for Damon in 122 starts, 17 wins for Hamilton in 96 starts. 20 poles for Hill, 21 for Hamilton.

Yet Villeneuve blew Hill out of the water in his very first race, almost a grand chelem, pole, fastest lap and for a faulty oil line, almost a win. He also dragged the title fight to the last race of the season. Fair and square. No FIA stewards in his pit box, sir.

Villeneuve has every right to be lauded for his rookie season as Hamilton.

Edited by TheBunk, 07 June 2012 - 19:29.

[hammibal]

TheBunk, on Jun 7 2012, 20:29, said:

Hill and Hamiltons stats arent that far off eachother. 22 wins for Damon in 122 starts, 17 wins for Hamilton in 96 starts. 20 poles for Hill, 21 for Hamilton.

Yet Villeneuve blew Hill out of the water in his very first race, almost a grand chelem, pole, fastest lap and for a faulty oil line, almost a win. He also dragged the title fight to the last race of the season. Fair and square. No FIA stewards in his pit box, sir.

Villeneuve has every right to be lauded for his rookie season as Hamilton.

Simply cherry picking, Berger outqualified Senna first time out, Hill outqualified Villenueve 13-3 sometimes by over a second, i remember Hill retiring from some races which kept Villenueve in the game, a good rookie season but Hill was clearly the better driver

Edit: Hill drove for Williams when they had a great car, 1993, second half of 1994, 1995, 1996

Edited by hammibal, 07 June 2012 - 19:55.

[Myrvold]

Hamilton have had a car capable of winning in, 07,08, some races of 09, 2010, 2011 and 2012. Where is the difference?

[hammibal]

Myrvold, on Jun 7 2012, 21:08, said:

Hamilton have had a car capable of winning in, 07,08, some races of 09, 2010, 2011 and 2012. Where is the difference?

Hill had the best car, like Red Bull 2010 and 2011, i dont believe Lewis has ever had the out and out best car

[Tifosi4ever]

hammibal, on Jun 7 2012, 21:11, said:

Hill had the best car, like Red Bull 2010 and 2011, i dont believe Lewis has ever had the out and out best car

In 2007, the McLaren was by far the best car. If Ron wasn't such a dick, they would have easily won both championships. Openly stating that you are only interested in beating your own (2*WDC Champ), sort of messes up your chances.

In 2008, Lewis managed to beat Massa on the last lap of the last race. Lewis should have been massively in front, as he or Fernando should have the year before. 2007 was Lewis's best year ever, funnily enough, 2008 was one of Lewis's worst years.

2007 and 2008, Lewis has had by far the best car. 2012, he also has by far the best car, but is 4th, with no wins. In fact, this year is the most dominant year for McLaren, yet Lewis again isn't leading.

Don't get me wrong. Lewis is one of the best, it is just that he tends to be brilliant only when there is no pressure. Apply pressure, and he crumbles.

[1Devil1]

hammibal, on Jun 7 2012, 19:53, said:

Edit: Hill drove for Williams when they had a great car, 1993, second half of 1994, 1995, 1996

Hamilton had a great/good cars in 2007, 2008, 2010,2011 and 2012. I think he is the only driver who had this luxury the last years. Can't see why this comparison is not valid?

[hammibal]

I guess Kimi was exceptional winning 6 races in the inferior Ferrari, even Massa chipped in with 3 wins, this against the dominating McLaren with two so so drivers in Alonso and Lewis. Massa followed this up by another amazing 6 wins in the inferior Ferrari the year after, i'm not sure you realise how dominant Williams were from 1992-1997.

You dont understand why Lewis isnt leading this year? One little clue qualify on pole by half a second but start from the back because you ran out of fuel, etc, etc

Edited by hammibal, 07 June 2012 - 20:47.

[SCEPurple]

Tifosi4ever, on Jun 7 2012, 21:25, said:

In 2007, the McLaren was by far the best car. If Ron wasn't such a dick, they would have easily won both championships. Openly stating that you are only interested in beating your own (2*WDC Champ), sort of messes up your chances.

In 2008, Lewis managed to beat Massa on the last lap of the last race. Lewis should have been massively in front, as he or Fernando should have the year before. 2007 was Lewis's best year ever, funnily enough, 2008 was one of Lewis's worst years.

2007 and 2008, Lewis has had by far the best car. 2012, he also has by far the best car, but is 4th, with no wins. In fact, this year is the most dominant year for McLaren, yet Lewis again isn't leading.

Don't get me wrong. Lewis is one of the best, it is just that he tends to be brilliant only when there is no pressure. Apply pressure, and he crumbles.

Just making bold the points I'm referencing:

I think the Mclaren/Ferrari were very similar pace over 2007/08, probably coming down to nailing set up or car to track characteristics.

I do have to agree that 2008 actually felt like one of Hamilton's "worst seasons". Obviously it is not remembered that way as he won the championship, but I also remember some painful penalties (some deserved, some perhaps not) and feeling like his season was very up and down. He and Massa traded blows in fortune/success throughout that season, but I feel Kovaleinen showed what an average driver could do with that car and it was generally not breathtaking during races, even with a less than ideal strategy.

No one is dominating this year. After Oz we all thought Mclaren might, but that is absolutely an out-dated perception now, probably buoyed only by Lewis' consistency/success in quali so far.

Regarding JV: I was about 8 years old and for some reason really remember being impressed by him and I could not understand what happened when he seemed to fade away into obscurity

[TheBunk]

SCEPurple, on Jun 7 2012, 20:43, said:

Just making bold the points I'm referencing:

I think the Mclaren/Ferrari were very similar pace over 2007/08, probably coming down to nailing set up or car to track characteristics.

I do have to agree that 2008 actually felt like one of Hamilton's "worst seasons". Obviously it is not remembered that way as he won the championship, but I also remember some painful penalties (some deserved, some perhaps not) and feeling like his season was very up and down. He and Massa traded blows in fortune/success throughout that season, but I feel Kovaleinen showed what an average driver could do with that car and it was generally not breathtaking during races, even with a less than ideal strategy.

No one is dominating this year. After Oz we all thought Mclaren might, but that is absolutely an out-dated perception now, probably buoyed only by Lewis' consistency/success in quali so far.

Regarding JV: I was about 8 years old and for some reason really remember being impressed by him and I could not understand what happened when he seemed to fade away into obscurity

I think that goes to his manager Craig Pollock. 'male grooming product manager' is what Nigel Roebuck called him ;) Pollock struck a deal with BAT, and figured with Villeneuve on stratospheric form (he was by then probably more hyped than Hamilton ever was) they could do what Schumacher did at Ferrari.

I also think that there wasnt much choice. He recently said he wanted to go to Ferrari, but they had no room because of Schumacher (with Jerez in mind, they wouldnt work together) and I dont know why Mclaren wwasnt an option. Perhaps Villeneuve wasnt the corporate robot Dennis liked to see. (eventhough they could at least have a chat out of courtesy for moving over for Mika.)

[wingwalker]

I noticed it before, people often like to make the 1996 JV-DH battle look a lot closer than it was. From what I remember it was more of a 2009 Brawn thing - JV/RB were improved in the second half of the season but nowhere enough to actually look like their rival is seriously threatened. Throwing out things like his Australia performance or that he DNF'ed out of the last race is a bit misleading - it's all true, but he was nowhere near Hill at the time when the wheel came off, he was destroyed by Hill in qualifying and if we play ifs and buts let's do it both way: Hill was engine failure at Monaco or oddly placed tires at the chicane in Italy away from securing the title at Monza. JV was a fantastic driver, but Hamilton did way better than him in their first seasons.

[TheBunk]

wingwalker, on Jun 7 2012, 21:27, said:

or that he DNF'ed out of the last race is a bit misleading - it's all true, but he was nowhere near Hill at the time when the wheel came off, he was destroyed by Hill in qualifying

I think the destroying was the other way round mate ;)

1996 Japanese Grand Prix

Qualifying
Pos No Driver Constructor Time Diff.
1 6 Jacques Villeneuve Williams-Renault 1:38.909
2 5 Damon Hill Williams-Renault 1:39.370 +0.461

[D.M.N.]

TheBunk, on Jun 7 2012, 22:54, said:

I think the destroying was the other way round mate ;)

1996 Japanese Grand Prix

Qualifying
Pos No Driver Constructor Time Diff.
1 6 Jacques Villeneuve Williams-Renault 1:38.909
2 5 Damon Hill Williams-Renault 1:39.370 +0.461

You've posted one example.

Hill had 9 pole positions, Villeneuve had 3 pole positions, how is that Villeneuve destroying Hill?

[TheBunk]

D.M.N., on Jun 7 2012, 21:58, said:

You've posted one example.

Hill had 9 pole positions, Villeneuve had 3 pole positions, how is that Villeneuve destroying Hill?

During the season it was HIll - no contest. BUt I thought he said Villeneuve was destroyed in qualifying at the last race in Japan. That isnt true.

I do agree Villeneuve dropped it in the race though. Well deserved championship for Hill. He had a fantastic season.

[D.M.N.]

TheBunk, on Jun 7 2012, 23:02, said:

During the season it was HIll - no contest. BUt I thought he said Villeneuve was destroyed in qualifying at the last race in Japan. That isnt true.

I do agree Villeneuve dropped it in the race though. Well deserved championship for Hill. He had a fantastic season.

I thought he was referring to the whole season - not just Japan. In any case, Villeneuve seemed to pull it all together for Japan in the Qualifying session.

[TheBunk]

Still, he had pole at Spa and Suzuka. As a driver I think the only one missing is Monaco.

But Hills list is really impressive.

http://en.wikipedia....mula_One_season

[wingwalker]

I phrased myself awkwardly - I meant the entire season.

[aditya-now]

TheBunk, on Jun 8 2012, 00:09, said:

Still, he had pole at Spa and Suzuka. As a driver I think the only one missing is Monaco.

But Hills list is really impressive.

http://en.wikipedia....mula_One_season

I have to say that pole position on circuits like Spa and Suzuka stands any driver in very good stead, especially in his first season. Says a lot about Jacques that he, together with his first ever GP scored pole positions on these very circuits.

[gricey1981]

aditya-now, on Jun 8 2012, 00:01, said:

I have to say that pole position on circuits like Spa and Suzuka stands any driver in very good stead, especially in his first season. Says a lot about Jacques that he, together with his first ever GP scored pole positions on these very circuits.

The Williams was without doubt the car to have though in 96. Nothing else was even close.

his rookie year was good - better than Montoyas for example - but Hamiltons was better

Edited by gricey1981, 08 June 2012 - 00:32.

[hammibal]

gricey1981, on Jun 8 2012, 01:32, said:

The Williams was without doubt the car to have though in 96. Nothing else was even close.

his rookie year was good - better than Montoyas for example - but Hamiltons was better

Yes in the 16 races Hill had 9 poles and 7 seconds, he never qualified off the front row

[CoolBreeze]

i think one of the main reason why both JV and Hammi had great rookie seasons is because they had the best cars/equipment in F1 at that time.

[ivand911]