Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

F1 Top 10 of All Time


  • Please log in to reply
342 replies to this topic

#301 Atreiu

Atreiu
  • Member

  • 14,333 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 20 January 2019 - 15:23

Hakkinen had a textbook title season in 1998. Wins, podiums, safe and sure dominance over his teamate and terrific qualifying. The only reason it was close was because of mechnical problems, Silverstone and Schumacher's overall exceptional driving - which is a credit to Hakkinen. Schumacher had some bad breaks as well, but it was not a season in which one contender suffered a disproportionate ammount of bad luck.

It does not compare to 1997. Villeneuve's season was riddled with inexplicably poor weekends and he was inconsistent all along the way. Big fat zeroes at Monaco, Montreal and Hockenheim; downright underwhelming driving at France, Spa and Monza. And Schumacher had a lot of off podium and low scoring weekends, there was plenty of room for Villeneuve to have had a much easier time.

There is no comparision.

Edited by Atreiu, 20 January 2019 - 20:20.


Advertisement

#302 garoidb

garoidb
  • Member

  • 6,067 posts
  • Joined: May 11

Posted 20 January 2019 - 15:26

I have something of a laugh about this Berger victory in Suzuka '91 discussion because up till now I am missing one vital element of that victory being taken into consideration.

 

It was one if the biggest humilation moments within Berger's career. Because of how he got it.

Because the last lap of the race started with Senna way out in the lead but ordered by Team McLaren to surrender the lead and hand the victory to Berger.

And it happened in the final section of the track in a manner so obvious that it was clear to see or everyone that Senna, for once, surrendered a victory that rightfully was his.

But he certainly made sure that everyone could see that thes was a defeat on orders.

And who knows how this loss of a victory on purpose and ordered as well agitated him and influenced his behaviour in the media room in the post race interview. So he kept that near legendary monologue in which he threw his bile on Balestre, FISA and everyone else who he felt was against him and used all of that as an excuse to justify his deeds of the year before.....

But all of that was of course aftermath....

 

Bu still:  when rating Berger's victory of that year in the powerful '91 McLaren-Honda V12 , don't forget it was a gift.......

 

Given that it wasn't done to help with a championship, if Senna wasn't going to do it respectfully then he shouldn't have done it all. Ron's reasons for wanting this were fuzzy for me - had Berger sacrificed his race to help Senna clinch the championship (by racing off and putting pressure on Mansell, for example)? 

 

Also, if there are suggestions that Prost was given worse engines than Senna then was the same true for Berger?


Edited by garoidb, 20 January 2019 - 15:26.


#303 Henri Greuter

Henri Greuter
  • Member

  • 9,123 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 20 January 2019 - 16:55

Given that it wasn't done to help with a championship, if Senna wasn't going to do it respectfully then he shouldn't have done it all. Ron's reasons for wanting this were fuzzy for me - had Berger sacrificed his race to help Senna clinch the championship (by racing off and putting pressure on Mansell, for example)? 

 

Also, if there are suggestions that Prost was given worse engines than Senna then was the same true for Berger?

 

I had to look it up where I recalled to have read about it but it was the Autocourse '91-92 that stated on page 231 that the drivers had made an agreement that  whoever lead in the first turn after the start. Berger managed to do that....

But according Autocourse, in the final lap Senna, who was leading with 6 seconds asked if the deal was still on, got the word that it was and then in reaction on that, he made it very public that he let Berger pass: within sight of the finish flag.

 

 

People with more affection for either Senna, McLaren and/or Dennis than I have may know more about it. I very vaguely remember something about Dennis wanting to to something for Berger so he would at least have one victory with the team he was leaving. But that is a very vague memory and I might get fans of the mentioned parties involved on my back to deny this. And I would instantly believe them.



#304 BUFFY

BUFFY
  • Member

  • 80 posts
  • Joined: September 18

Posted 20 January 2019 - 17:29

Double check that with Nico Rosberg.  ;)

??

 

2011 was a bad year for Hamilton, but even at his worse, he was still able to take 3 wins (Button also got 3 wins), and was able to comfortably outqualify Button.  He was still the quicker driver. The head to head in 2 car finish was pretty much even too. Hamilton lost on points, but in all the other relevant performance indicators, he wasn't clearly outperformed or embarrassed by Button. 

 

2011 was the only truly poor year Hamilton has had. Even when Hamilton lost the title to Rosberg in 2016, on the whole, Hamilton drove well e.g https://www.eurospor...257/story.shtml        https://www.skysport...-of-the-f1-year      etc


Edited by BUFFY, 20 January 2019 - 17:36.


#305 FrontWing

FrontWing
  • Member

  • 4,779 posts
  • Joined: April 15

Posted 20 January 2019 - 17:50

Double check that with Nico Rosberg.  ;)

He still out qualified and won more races than Nico. There was a clear performance difference between Dan and Vettel in 2014 which is why it's brought up more than Lewis' off seasons. Most could still see Lewis was the better driver even in the 2 seasons he lost, not so with Vettel. Granted its tougher with Vettel as he only had one season against Dan.

Edited by FrontWing, 20 January 2019 - 17:51.


#306 boillot

boillot
  • Member

  • 767 posts
  • Joined: June 18

Posted 20 January 2019 - 18:31

People with more affection for either Senna, McLaren and/or Dennis than I have may know more about it. I very vaguely remember something about Dennis wanting to to something for Berger so he would at least have one victory with the team he was leaving. But that is a very vague memory and I might get fans of the mentioned parties involved on my back to deny this. And I would instantly believe them.

 

But Berger (nor Senna) was not leaving. He scored another 2 wins for McLaren in 1992.



#307 boillot

boillot
  • Member

  • 767 posts
  • Joined: June 18

Posted 20 January 2019 - 18:35

He still out qualified and won more races than Nico. There was a clear performance difference between Dan and Vettel in 2014 which is why it's brought up more than Lewis' off seasons. Most could still see Lewis was the better driver even in the 2 seasons he lost, not so with Vettel. Granted its tougher with Vettel as he only had one season against Dan.

 

Actually, it's not tough with Vettel at all because he had many other sketchy seasons, helped by having weak(er) teammates.

He was bad or so so in 2009, 2010, 2012, 2014, 2016, 2017 and 2018. And that leaves only 2008, two seasons with an absolutely dominant car and 2015, that was not bad but not that special either. It's easy to see that 2014 was by no means an exception. It's actually the accurate reflection of Vettel's capabilities.



#308 Henri Greuter

Henri Greuter
  • Member

  • 9,123 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 20 January 2019 - 19:19

But Berger (nor Senna) was not leaving. He scored another 2 wins for McLaren in 1992.

 

 

Shoot!!!! you're right. I'm one year off, he went back to Ferrari in '93.

So much for what I vaguely remember about the reasons why.

 

You're right, thanks for correcting me.



#309 boillot

boillot
  • Member

  • 767 posts
  • Joined: June 18

Posted 20 January 2019 - 19:41

Shoot!!!! you're right. I'm one year off, he went back to Ferrari in '93.

So much for what I vaguely remember about the reasons why.

 

You're right, thanks for correcting me.

I also don't remember the reasons.

Perhaps, having won all 4 titles in 1990-91, but with Berger not scoring a single win, Dennis wanted to say thank you to Berger this way.



#310 messy

messy
  • Member

  • 3,166 posts
  • Joined: October 15

Posted 20 January 2019 - 21:53

Hakkinen had a textbook title season in 1998. Wins, podiums, safe and sure dominance over his teamate and terrific qualifying. The only reason it was close was because of mechnical problems, Silverstone and Schumacher's overall exceptional driving - which is a credit to Hakkinen. Schumacher had some bad breaks as well, but it was not a season in which one contender suffered a disproportionate ammount of bad luck.
It does not compare to 1997. Villeneuve's season was riddled with inexplicably poor weekends and he was inconsistent all along the way. Big fat zeroes at Monaco, Montreal and Hockenheim; downright underwhelming driving at France, Spa and Monza. And Schumacher had a lot of off podium and low scoring weekends, there was plenty of room for Villeneuve to have had a much easier time.
There is no comparision.


Yup, then he had utter burnout over the winter with constant press and sponsor events, came into 1999 absolutely mentally drained, exhausted and not ready to do it all over again, and followed it up with a mess of a title defence probably more akin to Villeneuve's '97.

In both cases the car was far enough ahead to get them across the line. JV '97 and Mika '99 were not great campaigns, or even arguably good ones. Mika, though, was fantastic in 1998.

#311 PlatenGlass

PlatenGlass
  • Member

  • 1,677 posts
  • Joined: June 14

Posted 20 January 2019 - 22:22

Yup, then he had utter burnout over the winter with constant press and sponsor events, came into 1999 absolutely mentally drained, exhausted and not ready to do it all over again, and followed it up with a mess of a title defence probably more akin to Villeneuve's '97.

In both cases the car was far enough ahead to get them across the line. JV '97 and Mika '99 were not great campaigns, or even arguably good ones. Mika, though, was fantastic in 1998.

One reason why I would rate Hakkinen's 1999 above Villeneuve's 1997 is that while Hakkinen often had inexplicable slumps when Coulthard would be faster than him for a few consecutive races, that didn't actually happen in 1999. It was actually one of his best years in terms of consistent speed. And while Hakkinen (1999) and Villeneuve (1997) both made errors, Villeneuve had more races where he was off the pace, and I think Villeneuve still made more errors - it's just that Hakkinen's two major errors came when he was leading.

#312 Henri Greuter

Henri Greuter
  • Member

  • 9,123 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 21 January 2019 - 08:11

I also don't remember the reasons.
Perhaps, having won all 4 titles in 1990-91, but with Berger not scoring a single win, Dennis wanted to say thank you to Berger this way.





Somehow, I'm still getting back some memories about Dennis wanting Berger to have a victory as well for whatever reasons. If that is indeed true then about the only option to get this done was when the drivers had agreed on the one who lead after the first turn be the winner if such was indeed possible to `arrange` should such be necessary. As long as the team managed to get Senna's cooperation of course.


Come to think of it, if this was indeed the scenario as took place, then this was at least the first of at least three occasions when McLaren `arranged` which of their drivers was allowed to win the race in the case of an upcoming double victory. ('97 Jerez & '98 Australia the other two I am aware of)

#313 FordFiesta

FordFiesta
  • Member

  • 224 posts
  • Joined: January 19

Posted 21 January 2019 - 09:43

If it was a gift, the win I mean, then was it that a bad idea? Rather a nice gesture. And apart from that: Berger suffered problems with the... what it's called: there was misfiring. And so he couldn't keep up the fight. And he wasn't slower than Senna at that weekend.

And regarding the blocking of Mansell: at least, the No.1 driver didn't feel being above and did the blocking himself in Suzuka (also like in Monza (?)).

Edited by FordFiesta, 21 January 2019 - 09:44.


#314 E.B.

E.B.
  • Member

  • 4,374 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 21 January 2019 - 13:51

If it was a gift, the win I mean, then was it that a bad idea? Rather a nice gesture.


Then do it the way Fangio did at Aintree and AVUS, no need to blatantly humiliate the other guy.

#315 FordFiesta

FordFiesta
  • Member

  • 224 posts
  • Joined: January 19

Posted 21 January 2019 - 14:20

Wasn't it a gift by McLaren? (By the way: the Jerez win in 1997 was also a nice gesture. It wasn't to break Coulthard like many said).

And regarding people saying that Senna was cheering too much: Well, he'd just won the championship. So, the overly cheering was because of that and not to remind people that he actually won the race.

#316 PlayboyRacer

PlayboyRacer
  • Member

  • 1,843 posts
  • Joined: March 16

Posted 21 January 2019 - 22:07

Hakkinen had a textbook title season in 1998. Wins, podiums, safe and sure dominance over his teamate and terrific qualifying. The only reason it was close was because of mechnical problems, Silverstone and Schumacher's overall exceptional driving - which is a credit to Hakkinen. Schumacher had some bad breaks as well, but it was not a season in which one contender suffered a disproportionate ammount of bad luck.

It does not compare to 1997. Villeneuve's season was riddled with inexplicably poor weekends and he was inconsistent all along the way. Big fat zeroes at Monaco, Montreal and Hockenheim; downright underwhelming driving at France, Spa and Monza. And Schumacher had a lot of off podium and low scoring weekends, there was plenty of room for Villeneuve to have had a much easier time.

There is no comparision.

What were Jacques poor weekends? France? He finished 4th. Hakkinen in the corresponding race finished 3rd in 1998. Both ironically had spins chasing Irvine. More similarities than you think.

What else? Monaco? Yep poor race, he followed Williams' call for the race and he and Frentzen went backwards. Germany? Italy? Yep... off the pace. But Williams were as a team, they weren't the fastest car there. It was really competitive. Whereas McLaren had the fastest car at EVERY race in 1998... also just on Hakkinens 'terrific qualifying in 1998' and 'safe and sure dominance over his teammate', what was Jacques in 1997 in those departments? Diabolical? Jesus lol.

In the end we ain't gonna agree with this. But I certainly think when you factor in JVs experience at the time plus the fact the grid was closer and more competitive than 1998, I think Jacques was every bit as impressive as Hakkinen in 98 and 99. I put much more emphasis on context... rather than comparing every little mistake.

Plus there was the Jerez finale. Jacques under pressure was something quite impressive and it was one for the ages. This debate might have been different had JV not wasted his prime years building a team and joined MH at McLaren but what can ya do.

Edited by PlayboyRacer, 21 January 2019 - 22:53.


#317 FordFiesta

FordFiesta
  • Member

  • 224 posts
  • Joined: January 19

Posted 22 January 2019 - 04:58

[...] Germany? Italy? Yep... off the pace. But Williams were as a team, they weren't the fastest car there.


Even the overall better 1996 Williams was poor at Monza and Hockenheim.

Strange, in many cases even very good working Newey cars, decades later, had their problems at Monza (2010, 2012). Seems to be kinda achilles heel of those constructions.

[...] also just on Hakkinens 'terrific qualifying in 1998' and 'safe and sure dominance over his teammate', what was Jacques in 1997 in those departments? Diabolical? Jesus lol.


[Regarding the former season] At least, Villeneuve lasted quite long against a driver who had beaten the driver Häkkinen had to cope with (and Häkkinen wasn't even always (only two thirds of their mutual team-mate time) crystal clear in front of him (otherwise 1997, 2001) like Dhill was during their entire team-mate time in 1995 and 1994.

#318 messy

messy
  • Member

  • 3,166 posts
  • Joined: October 15

Posted 22 January 2019 - 08:46

For me Hakkinen's 1998 season was on a different level to his 1999 campaign and Villeneuve's 1997. Mika in 1998 was superb. He had the best car and overall, maybe if you had to choose one of them then Schumacher was the star of the year - but both of them were pretty incredible. Two gladiators on a different level entirely to the rest of the grid. Coulthard, after blowing his opportunity at Argentina, was nowhere really and Irvine was half a second behind him; then the rest.

Pros and cons comparing 97 and 99. I'd say personally both were fairly weak title campaigns. Mika had fearsome speed but his bulletproof performance levels from 98 were gone as he made two very costly unforced errors and struggled with it all, Villeneuve established himself ahead of a very dangerous (on paper) team-mate and his form fluctuated much more - but generally along with Williams' own.

Monza and Hockenheim have always caught teams out. I remember Schumacher and Ferrari really struggling there too in 97 and 98, and the other examples alluded to above with Williams and Red Bull. Even back in 2001 it was the circuit where the dominant Ferraris dropped behind Williams on merit. I suppose it's less of an issue now, Singapore seems to have taken over as the 'quirky' circuit in recent years.

#319 Henri Greuter

Henri Greuter
  • Member

  • 9,123 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 22 January 2019 - 11:03

Even the overall better 1996 Williams was poor at Monza and Hockenheim.

Strange, in many cases even very good working Newey cars, decades later, had their problems at Monza (2010, 2012). Seems to be kinda achilles heel of those constructions.


[Regarding the former season] At least, Villeneuve lasted quite long against a driver who had beaten the driver Häkkinen had to cope with (and Häkkinen wasn't even always (only two thirds of their mutual team-mate time) crystal clear in front of him (otherwise 1997, 2001) like Dhill was during their entire team-mate time in 1995 and 1994.



Coincidence? Both these tracks were among the fastests tracks of the trail...

Advertisement

#320 sopa

sopa
  • Member

  • 11,651 posts
  • Joined: April 07

Posted 22 January 2019 - 11:08

I think Berger was gifted the 1991 Suzuka win, because he hadn't won yet for McLaren and they wanted to thank him for being a team player. Because as mentioned, Berger had to sacrifice his race by going flat-out to catch out Mansell in the title contention.

 

As for Hockenheim, it indeed threw some surprises. Benetton was really quick in 1996-97. Meanwhile they struggled on high downforce tracks. And I'm a bit amazed, how Jordan could be so quick in 1997 and 1999, because I doubt Peugeot or Mugen-Honda had one of the most powerful engines. I guess the chassis was really suited to low downforce circuits.


Edited by sopa, 22 January 2019 - 11:08.


#321 Oho

Oho
  • Member

  • 9,675 posts
  • Joined: November 98

Posted 22 January 2019 - 17:53

Well not that I think Häkkinen belongs in top ten, not that I'd presume to know who does, in one way he stands out in this thread and perhaps sport personalities in general.

 

His perceived on track decorum and general decency is frequently being used to belittle his career and sporting achievements along the lines: 'I Think he he was ok [usually sounds less than sincere] but he is given such an easy pass because of his gentlemanly tack and civil rivalry with Schumacher'. 


Edited by Oho, 22 January 2019 - 17:53.


#322 garoidb

garoidb
  • Member

  • 6,067 posts
  • Joined: May 11

Posted 22 January 2019 - 18:06

I think Berger was gifted the 1991 Suzuka win, because he hadn't won yet for McLaren and they wanted to thank him for being a team player. Because as mentioned, Berger had to sacrifice his race by going flat-out to catch out Mansell in the title contention.

 

The thing is, a respectful way to do it would have been for Senna to not catch and pass Berger. It would have been easy, and no-one would ever have to know. Obviously, Senna didn't want to do it and wanted to make a point. I wouldn't have been happy if I was Ron, but I wonder why Senna did it.



#323 Yamamoto

Yamamoto
  • Member

  • 766 posts
  • Joined: April 16

Posted 22 January 2019 - 18:11

This topic is just making me wish I'd seen the 1997 season in real time, it sounds very entertaining.



#324 Oho

Oho
  • Member

  • 9,675 posts
  • Joined: November 98

Posted 22 January 2019 - 18:25

This topic is just making me wish I'd seen the 1997 season in real time, it sounds very entertaining.

 

 

Well Schumacher and Villeneuve did not share podium once during the season, the entertainment was mostly off track....



#325 PlatenGlass

PlatenGlass
  • Member

  • 1,677 posts
  • Joined: June 14

Posted 22 January 2019 - 19:02

As for Hockenheim, it indeed threw some surprises. Benetton was really quick in 1996-97. Meanwhile they struggled on high downforce tracks. And I'm a bit amazed, how Jordan could be so quick in 1997 and 1999, because I doubt Peugeot or Mugen-Honda had one of the most powerful engines. I guess the chassis was really suited to low downforce circuits.

I thought it was generally accepted that Peugeot and Mugen-Honda had good engines actually.

But anyway, regarding Hockenheim/Monza - Williams were actually dominant at both places in 1996 with Hill, or they would have been had things gone to plan. At Hockenheim, he was beaten away at the start by Berger and was held up (and won when Berger's engine went), but pace-wise there was no problem. And at Monza, he crashed into the crazy ad hoc tyres barriers when he probably would have dominated.

In 1997, less so but its worth pointing out that Frentzen qualified about half a second faster than Villeneuve at Hockenheim and was only 0.052 seconds from pole at Monza. And we all know that Frentzen generally struggled that year, so maybe Williams's weakness at these places was more that Villeneuve took three years to get used to these circuits.

#326 Oho

Oho
  • Member

  • 9,675 posts
  • Joined: November 98

Posted 22 January 2019 - 20:13

But anyway, regarding Hockenheim/Monza - Williams were actually dominant at both places in 1996 with Hill, or they would have been had things gone to plan. At Hockenheim, he was beaten away at the start by Berger and was held up (and won when Berger's engine went), but pace-wise there was no problem. And at Monza, he crashed into the crazy ad hoc tyres barriers when he probably would have dominated.
 

 

Well at least Hill ruined his race by hitting the tire barrier, some other(s) fell victim of a tire that was knocked loose from one of the stacks and ended up smack middle in the racing line...



#327 E.B.

E.B.
  • Member

  • 4,374 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 22 January 2019 - 20:30

This topic is just making me wish I'd seen the 1997 season in real time, it sounds very entertaining.


I found late 1990s F1 as bland as hell compared to what preceded it.

#328 FordFiesta

FordFiesta
  • Member

  • 224 posts
  • Joined: January 19

Posted 22 January 2019 - 20:49

I found late 1990s F1 as bland as hell compared to what preceded it.


Without thinking, from 1994 in Monaco till 1995 in Adelaide, F1 was THE worst.

Then a little colour came to F1 so to say. Someone with a colourful name. Pole position at once and i woke up for the race at 04:00 a.m. and, what can I say, I wasn't disappointed.

#329 E.B.

E.B.
  • Member

  • 4,374 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 22 January 2019 - 21:39

I knew in advance that JV would stick it on pole in his first race, and because of his dad and his Indy success it was easy to support him. But ask me to recall anything about any individual race from that era and I would probably draw a blank.

#330 PlayboyRacer

PlayboyRacer
  • Member

  • 1,843 posts
  • Joined: March 16

Posted 22 January 2019 - 23:02

Well Schumacher and Villeneuve did not share podium once during the season, the entertainment was mostly off track....

That's rubbish. Such an anomaly doesn't make any difference to the entertainment of that season. From the moment Irvine punted JV off in Melbourne and MS/JV clashed at the first turn in Brazil (which was restarted)... you knew it was gonna be spiteful.

4 teams won races, 6 drivers won races, 9 teams scored at least 1 podium and Jordan, Prost and even Arrows showed great pace at various races.

Add in the two championship contenders, their opposing characters, the trash talk in the press and the great performances both showed (Schumacher with his genius at various races and Jacques as the young 'american kid' shaking up the establishment)... leading to the epic finale which was a head to head duel...

I have no idea how you'd say all the action was off track. It was one of the last classic seasons imo. Also the last of the wide track, slicks era. There is enough material, controversy and the right characters for Rush 2... now there is an idea!

Edited by PlayboyRacer, 23 January 2019 - 01:11.


#331 PlayboyRacer

PlayboyRacer
  • Member

  • 1,843 posts
  • Joined: March 16

Posted 22 January 2019 - 23:14

Then a little colour came to F1 so to say. Someone with a colourful name. Pole position at once and i woke up for the race at 04:00 a.m. and, what can I say, I wasn't disappointed.

Well said. Jacques' arrival from IndyCar sure was huge news back then and he didn't disappoint. Entertaining, brave and colourful... and F1 was in dire need of it. Bernie made it his mission to prise JV from the states and with good reason.

#332 PlayboyRacer

PlayboyRacer
  • Member

  • 1,843 posts
  • Joined: March 16

Posted 22 January 2019 - 23:19

Well not that I think Häkkinen belongs in top ten, not that I'd presume to know who does, in one way he stands out in this thread and perhaps sport personalities in general.

His perceived on track decorum and general decency is frequently being used to belittle his career and sporting achievements along the lines: 'I Think he he was ok [usually sounds less than sincere] but he is given such an easy pass because of his gentlemanly tack and civil rivalry with Schumacher'.

It's pretty simple. I apply the same criteria and full context to every driver and their individual performances and season results. Or at least I try really hard to.

Most fans don't. They play favourites and let personal hate and a drivers character dictate their ratings. I do think Hakkinen gets an easier ride than most, he's well liked and well respected so some things are slightly glossed over imo.

Without a doubt he was one of the very best and fastest of his generation. I haven't disputed that. In another post I said specifically, across all generations, imo he sits between 18-20 on an all time F1 list.

#333 garoidb

garoidb
  • Member

  • 6,067 posts
  • Joined: May 11

Posted 22 January 2019 - 23:30

Well said. Jacques' arrival from IndyCar sure was huge news back then and he didn't disappoint. Entertaining, brave and colourful... and F1 was in dire need of it. Bernie made it his mission to prise JV from the states and with good reason.

 

Indeed. Today's equivalent would be Mick Schumacher arriving in F1 in a top team having already won the Indy 500. 1996 was only 14 years after the death of Gilles, and many of the biggest stars F1 ever had were recently retired or killed. It was massive for the show. Jacques was phenomenal in Indycars when the series was at one of its peaks (competing against Mansell, Tracy, Fittipaldi, Rahal, Michael Andretti, Al Jr). Combined with the legend of Gilles Villeneuve and the vacuum after Senna, it was a massive story. Over time, Jacques rubbed people up the wrong way and that initial frisson has been forgotten (even though he delivered the goods).   


Edited by garoidb, 22 January 2019 - 23:35.


#334 PlayboyRacer

PlayboyRacer
  • Member

  • 1,843 posts
  • Joined: March 16

Posted 23 January 2019 - 01:29

One reason why I would rate Hakkinen's 1999 above Villeneuve's 1997 is that while Hakkinen often had inexplicable slumps when Coulthard would be faster than him for a few consecutive races, that didn't actually happen in 1999. It was actually one of his best years in terms of consistent speed. And while Hakkinen (1999) and Villeneuve (1997) both made errors, Villeneuve had more races where he was off the pace, and I think Villeneuve still made more errors - it's just that Hakkinen's two major errors came when he was leading.

JV made three glaring errors in 1997 - Monaco, Canada, Germany. Hakkinen the major two throwing away leads in 1999. Can't actually remember if there were any more of note.

JV was in his second season of F1. Mika in his eighth or so season of F1. Both men trounced their teammates. Hakkinen had to beat Eddie Irvine, Jacques had to beat Michael Schumacher. JV won 7 races, 10 poles. Mika 5 wins, 11 poles.

Yeah... I don't see it. Jacques' championship win in another class to 1999. Closer to Mikas 1998 imo.

Edited by PlayboyRacer, 23 January 2019 - 01:42.


#335 sopa

sopa
  • Member

  • 11,651 posts
  • Joined: April 07

Posted 23 January 2019 - 08:24

This topic is just making me wish I'd seen the 1997 season in real time, it sounds very entertaining.

 

I reckon 1997 is among the best seasons of last 30 years.  :up:



#336 PlatenGlass

PlatenGlass
  • Member

  • 1,677 posts
  • Joined: June 14

Posted 23 January 2019 - 08:58

JV made three glaring errors in 1997 - Monaco, Canada, Germany. Hakkinen the major two throwing away leads in 1999. Can't actually remember if there were any more of note.

JV was in his second season of F1. Mika in his eighth or so season of F1. Both men trounced their teammates. Hakkinen had to beat Eddie Irvine, Jacques had to beat Michael Schumacher. JV won 7 races, 10 poles. Mika 5 wins, 11 poles.

Yeah... I don't see it. Jacques' championship win in another class to 1999. Closer to Mikas 1998 imo.

Your description doesn't really justify your conclusion. You've made them sound fairly similar and then said that 1997 was in another class to 1999.

But also Villeneuve threw away the lead at Brazil but was lucky that the race was restarted. The fact that it was Villeneuve's second year also doesn't change anything in objective terms as to how good the season was. Plus he'd been in IndyCar - another top level series - and not making mistakes is a transferrable skill. If you're a mature driver at the top and you go to a new series, you might need to learn things about the cars, but learning not to throw away races is not something you need to learn anew.

So the only real difference you mention is that Villeneuve had to beat Schumacher and Hakkinen only had to beat Irvine. But in terms of racking up points, it often doesn't matter who the opposition is. Irvine was close because he had better reliability. He wasn't close on the track. Hakkinen was 8 points ahead of Schumacher anyway when Schumacher had his accident and they'd both thrown away one lead each. Hakkinen only made one major mistake after that so if Schumacher didn't have the accident and won the championship, Hakkinen's bad luck (which is often overlooked) would have been a bigger factor than the two mistakes.

#337 Anuity

Anuity
  • Member

  • 152 posts
  • Joined: September 17

Posted 23 January 2019 - 10:14

I think Jacques get criticized too much for his 1997.

 

Baring few mistakes he was pretty good in car which was not as dominant as in 1996 anymore and he did manage to beat Michael.

 

I think that his 1997 campaign all around looks much stronger than that of Mika in 1999 or Lewis in 2008. 

Especially if we take into account that his opponent was Michael vs. Eddie and Felipe.



#338 FordFiesta

FordFiesta
  • Member

  • 224 posts
  • Joined: January 19

Posted 23 January 2019 - 10:31

Indeed. Today's equivalent would be Mick Schumacher arriving in F1 in a top team having already won the Indy 500. 1996 was only 14 years after the death of Gilles, and many of the biggest stars F1 ever had were recently retired or killed. [...]


Except that when Mick S. will arrive, there won't be a vacuum to be filled as most probably (I hope so at least) Hamilton will be there, Vettel will be there and then (maybe) super star Verstappen. So, there will be hopefully high-end opposition between those three guys anyway.

But between 1994 in Monaco and 1995 in Adelaide, there was nothing like that. There was somebody who had it too easy as the one other guy was simply not up to it.

#339 sopa

sopa
  • Member

  • 11,651 posts
  • Joined: April 07

Posted 23 January 2019 - 11:32

I thought it was generally accepted that Peugeot and Mugen-Honda had good engines actually.
 

 

"Good" yeah. But how would you define good? Was Peugeot better or as powerful as Renault or Mercedes in 1997? Or Mugen as powerful as Mercedes and Ferrari in 1999?

 

I reckon Jordan's performance was a bit like McLaren's performance in 2006 at Monza. Mercedes in the first V8 season without rev-limiter was considered to be slightly lacking compared to the very best, yet McLaren's mechanical grip was so good Raikkonen was keeping up with Schumacher.



Advertisement

#340 PlayboyRacer

PlayboyRacer
  • Member

  • 1,843 posts
  • Joined: March 16

Posted 23 January 2019 - 12:50

Your description doesn't really justify your conclusion. You've made them sound fairly similar and then said that 1997 was in another class to 1999.

But also Villeneuve threw away the lead at Brazil but was lucky that the race was restarted. The fact that it was Villeneuve's second year also doesn't change anything in objective terms as to how good the season was. Plus he'd been in IndyCar - another top level series - and not making mistakes is a transferrable skill. If you're a mature driver at the top and you go to a new series, you might need to learn things about the cars, but learning not to throw away races is not something you need to learn anew.

So the only real difference you mention is that Villeneuve had to beat Schumacher and Hakkinen only had to beat Irvine. But in terms of racking up points, it often doesn't matter who the opposition is. Irvine was close because he had better reliability. He wasn't close on the track. Hakkinen was 8 points ahead of Schumacher anyway when Schumacher had his accident and they'd both thrown away one lead each. Hakkinen only made one major mistake after that so if Schumacher didn't have the accident and won the championship, Hakkinen's bad luck (which is often overlooked) would have been a bigger factor than the two mistakes.

Sure I made them sound similar in terms of stats and mistakes (though Jacques never threw away a race he was leading comfortably in the two seasons he had a winning car, Brazil 1997 start he and Schumacher were battling into the first corner. Not the same thing) but the context between 1997 and 1999 is vastly different. Or perhaps more to the point, you put zero emphasis on that, whilst I put quite alot of emphasis on it. Things like levels of F1 experience, opponents, competitiveness of other teams, the quality of their car relative to the opposition for the whole season... then things like stats, mistakes etc come into it.

You say coming from IndyCar shouldn't have mattered a thing, being another high level series like F1 and that being only his second F1 season is irrelevant. Ok.

How many drivers in history have come from US open wheel racing to F1 (not the other way around), with little or no previous experience in European racing and succeeded in winning races and becoming F1 World Champion?

If it's simply transferrable skills and the differences between the two disciplines are irrelevant, I'd expect the list to be long...

Edited by PlayboyRacer, 23 January 2019 - 12:55.


#341 PlayboyRacer

PlayboyRacer
  • Member

  • 1,843 posts
  • Joined: March 16

Posted 23 January 2019 - 13:03

I think Jacques get criticized too much for his 1997.

Baring few mistakes he was pretty good in car which was not as dominant as in 1996 anymore and he did manage to beat Michael.

I think that his 1997 campaign all around looks much stronger than that of Mika in 1999 or Lewis in 2008.
Especially if we take into account that his opponent was Michael vs. Eddie and Felipe.

Absolutely agree. However I will add that Lewis in 2008 was also only in his second season of F1. Second year blues are clearly a thing! I think it still was a great season from him, highs and lows but when he was on it, he was spectacular and their opposition in Ferrari was strong.

#342 PlatenGlass

PlatenGlass
  • Member

  • 1,677 posts
  • Joined: June 14

Posted 23 January 2019 - 13:45

You say coming from IndyCar shouldn't have mattered a thing, being another high level series like F1 and that being only his second F1 season is irrelevant. Ok.

How many drivers in history have come from US open wheel racing to F1 (not the other way around), with little or no previous experience in European racing and succeeded in winning races and becoming F1 World Champion?

If it's simply transferrable skills and the differences between the two disciplines are irrelevant, I'd expect the list to be long...

I purely meant this in terms of "rookie" errors. And I'm not saying that Villeneuve was bad in 1997 either. In terms of overall context, you might argue that Villeneuve's 1997 was more impressive than Hakkinen's 1999. But in terms of objective performance I wouldn't say that. It's as much as I'm prepared to concede!

Edit - And looking too much at context of a driver's skill can take you to places you never intended. For example, I'm pretty sure a very big reason why Max is as good as he is is that he has an ex-F1 driver as a dad who basically prepared him from birth to be an F1 world champion. It's another level even compared to the usual rich dad stories.

Edited by PlatenGlass, 23 January 2019 - 14:41.


#343 paulstevens56

paulstevens56
  • Member

  • 91 posts
  • Joined: January 19

Posted 31 January 2019 - 01:02

A top ten, always good fun.

 

For me.

 

1, Clark. 2 Fangio. 3 Stewart. 4 Prost. 5, Lauda. 6, Brabham. 7 Senna. 8 Schumacher. 9 Ascari. 10. G Hill.

 

Moderns no, carts to easy. Sorry just my opinion