60 replies to this topic

[skittt]

That is weird. The 2 WDCs challengers were never on the podium at the same time. How come?

[Ross Stonefeld]

Just the strange way the season went. They werent together on track much either, if I recall.

[Don Speekingleesh]

Well, when one of them finished in the top three, the other one didn't...

[Mauseri]

Originally posted by skittt
That is weird. The 2 WDCs challengers were never on the podium at the same time. How come?

It's influenced by the fact that there were too many teams capable of spoiling the party.

Benetton, McLaren, Jordan, and also bridgestones occasionally.

[HardRock]

That's a very interesting post, I did not remember the 1997 season anymore. Even though I really enjoyed F1 that year.

[skittt]

Originally posted by micra_k10

It's influenced by the fact that there were too many teams capable of spoiling the party.

Benetton, McLaren, Jordan, and also bridgestones occasionally.

Was the 1997 season more competitive than the 2005 season then?

[Calorus]

Also there was an - ahem - hiccup when they were going to...

[bira]

My recollection of the 1997 season was that up until the last one or two races (Jerez certainly, but maybe to some degree Suzuka too - despite the DQ), the two Championship protagonists never battled each other. Ever. What makes this very interesting, is the fact that 1997 seems to be remembered as one of the most intense and dramatic title battles in recent years (and I share that perception).

It was just that their characters and their personal animosity offered a very dramatic face/off - but it was played out in the media, in the paddock, and not on track.

[VoidNT]

Originally posted by skittt
Was the 1997 season more competitive than the 2005 season then?

Yes, it was. I would say that 1997 was much better than 2005. Each weekend was absolutely unpredictable and had its own heroes. There were great moments for Coulthard, Frentzen, Fisichella, Berger, Hakkinen, Hill, Panis, Trulli... Schumacher and Villeneuve were just more consistent than others. I include 1997 in my list of best F1 seasons (since '92) : 2000, 2003, 1997, 1993 and 2005.

[bira]

What was exceptionally competitive about 2005? I didn't think it was a competitive year at all. Sure, there were two wc contenders and not one, as in 2004. But even compared to 2003 I thought 2005 was rather dull and somewhat predictable.

[HardRock]

Originally posted by bira
What was exceptionally competitive about 2005? I didn't think it was a competitive year at all. Sure, there were two wc contenders and not one, as in 2004. But even compared to 2003 I thought 2005 was rather dull and somewhat predictable.

I agree with you. In reality Alonso was way ahead anybody else the whole year. The fans and the media wanted it to look more competitive than it actually was.
At the end Alonso had 21 more points than Kimi. That was the difference pretty much all year long.
Dull for sure.

[Racer Joe]

Originally posted by HardRock
The fans and the media wanted it to look more competitive than it actually was.
At the end Alonso had 21 more points than Kimi. That was the difference pretty much all year long.
Dull for sure.

I don't think the points difference necessarily reflected that there was in fact a championship fight going on. The important thing for people watching is that for much of the year Kimi was in a car fast enough to allow him to catch Alonso in points eventually. And that he was driving well enough.

[angst]

Originally posted by bira
What was exceptionally competitive about 2005? I didn't think it was a competitive year at all. Sure, there were two wc contenders and not one, as in 2004. But even compared to 2003 I thought 2005 was rather dull and somewhat predictable.

I think that 2005 was a pretty uncopetitive year, in as much as there were only ever really two teams in with a shout of a win (Indy excepted). But what it did have were some pretty dramatic races - Imola, Nurburgring and Suzuka going right 'to the wire'. But really the season was all about Alonso and Raikkonen.

[John B]

Throw out Indy, and all of the 2005 races were won by two teams.

As mentioned there simply were a greater number of competive cars competing for the top three. Williams had dominated 1996, but was coming back to the pack. Ferrari and later McLaren were on the way up. Renault supplied Benetton as well as Williams, giving them podium opportunities.
Bridgestone allowed Ligier/Prost on many occasions and Hill a couple times to run up front.

From what I remember, Williams was dominant early, slumped significantly in mid-season (both drivers got chewed out by Head after Germany), then got it together at the end. Then MS and Ferrari were strongest in mid-season when Williams was down, which had some part in them never sharing a podium.

Be interesting to see if this (not sharing podiums) was close to happening any other year - my guess is probably not.

[bira]

Originally posted by angst


I think that 2005 was a pretty uncopetitive year, in as much as there were only ever really two teams in with a shout of a win (Indy excepted). But what it did have were some pretty dramatic races - Imola, Nurburgring and Suzuka going right 'to the wire'. But really the season was all about Alonso and Raikkonen.

Oh, I agree with you there. Some of the races this year were absolutely thrilling - Suzuka, for one, was probably the race of the decade.

I was referring strictly to the notion that 2005 was a competitive season. Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but my impression - or understanding - of a competitive season is that the title battle is wide open and there are several (certainly more than one or two) teams in realistic contention for a GP win as well as a championship. I consider 1999, for example, one of the most competitive season in years, given how it unfolded. 2003, too. Just look how many different drivers and teams won a race that year...

[bira]

Originally posted by John B
Be interesting to see if this was close to happening any other year - my guess is probably not.

You could sort of say that 1998 was on paper somewhat similar - although not as radical as 1997. McLaren/Bridgestone were strong in the first part of the year, Ferrari were strong in the second. The difference, I think, is that Schumacher was on the edge and in his prime even when his car wasn;t at its best, and likewise Hakkinen pulled something extra when his package was down. And, most importantly, you actually saw them on track and on the podium at the same time

[jnp]

Originally posted by Don Speekingleesh
Well, when one of them finished in the top three, the other one didn't...

jnp

[John B]

True - and from what I remember 1991 might fit as well - Senna, then Williams, then a bit of a closer battle down the stretch. Seems in many years the team that starts out with a winning streak winds up winning the title, probably the teams needing big comebacks have too little margin for error.

[angst]

Originally posted by bira


Oh, I agree with you there. Some of the races this year were absolutely thrilling - Suzuka, for one, was probably the race of the decade.

I was referring strictly to the notion that 2005 was a competitive season. Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but my impression - or understanding - of a competitive season is that the title battle is wide open and there are several (certainly more than one or two) teams in realistic contention for a GP win as well as a championship. I consider 1999, for example, one of the most competitive season in years, given how it unfolded. 2003, too. Just look how many different drivers and teams won a race that year...

Absolutely agree - and that was what I was essentially saying. 2005 wasn't a particularly competitive year, but people might perceive (so soon afterwards) that it was because of the races.

[Spunout]

Absolutely agree - and that was what I was essentially saying. 2005 wasn't a particularly competitive year, but people might perceive (so soon afterwards) that it was because of the races.

Yep, only 3 teams took wins and even that´s only if you count USGP.

It´s exactly as you say, not particularly competitive season, but there were lots of competitive races for the win (!) : Japan, Europe, San Marino, Monaco, etc.

[capture_the_flag]

This is one of the most stunning coincidence in F1 IMHO. So why? Two contenders, a mediocre one in a great car, and a great one in a mediocre car, and they have outscored the whole field. BUT! they never met on the podium that year. And it was only one race where none of them reached the podium. Monza. So the chart:

OZ: Schu 2.
Bra: Vill 1.
Arg: Vill 1.
SM: Schu 2.
Mon: Schu 1.
Esp: Vill 1.
Can: Schu 1.
Fra: Schu 1.
GB: Vill 1.
Ger: Schu 2.
Hun: Vill 1.
Bel: Schu 1.
Ita: the odd man!!!
Aut: Vill 1.
Lux: Vill 1.
Jap: Schu 1.
EU: Vill 3.

It's kinda interesting, ain't it?

[Mauseri]

Originally posted by skittt
Was the 1997 season more competitive than the 2005 season then?

Absolutely. I wouldn't call 2005 season particularly competitive. Gaps were simply too big between first half of the grid.

Here's my lopinion of last 9 years from most to least tight grid in the front. For example Schumi won much in 2001 but there were many who tried and did win races.

1. 2003
2. 1997
3. 2001
4. 2000
5. 1999
6. 2005
7. 1998
8. 2002
9. 2004

[bira]

You might want to read this article. It's an ambitious 'study' we published on Atlas F1 that attempts to grade the seasons - but the result rings truer than most statistical analyses I've ever seen. Since it was published in early 2000, it does not include the last 6 seasons. But the methodology is there - one of you could apply it to the last six seasons and see how they fall within the total standings.

[gerry nassar]

I hold 1997 as my favourite F1 season (atleast since I began watching in the mid 90s). The battle between Jaques and Michael was an epic - yet they didnt clash on track until the final race. So what makes it so special?

Well firstly its the great hollywood story. The fiery young non comformist up against the establishment and the perceived villain in Michael Schumacher. IMO MS was at the top of his game and I will always believe that he is the main reason why 97 and 98 seasons were so damn watchable.

But apart from the two leaders battling it out we had:

Benetton capable of wins and doing so.

A young hip team in Jordan shaking up the order with great marketing, good cars and two volatile but fast young rookies.

Mclaren showing first signs of dominance that would come. Mika Hakkinens first win getting the monkey off his back and DC taking two wins and cementing himself as the best driver off the line in F1.

The current WDC in a backmarker car.

Bridgestone moving teams like Arrows and Prost into contention for wins in some races.

Prost managing to get good results with Panis before his crash and then showcasing Trulli to the world.

But what marks 1997 as such a memorable year in terms of competitiveness was the grid for Jerez. No matter how contrived it may have been - to have JV, MS and Frentzen all on the same lap time filling the top 3 spots on the grid - with the current WDC in 4th in an Arrows and the future champions Mclaren right behind him - really summed up what a great season it had been.


When you look at 2005 - you can almost say that Kimi and Alonso may have battled each other throughout the year - but it was much like in 97 where they didnt really battle it out wheel to wheel bar a few small instances. They may have shared the podium on numerous occasions but it always seemd they were racing seperate championships - especially because of the Mclaren's reliability issues.

IMO I enjoyed 2003 more than 2005 which was still a good season.

Overall I think you can divide each season over the last decade into 3 categories

1. Open competitive seasons (multiple winners, open championship) - 1997, 1999, 2003.
2. Head to Head seasoms (its all about 2 drivers) - 1998, 2000, 2005
3. Whitewash seasons (dominant team takes all, with a few others taking scraps) - 1996, 2002, 2004

Personally i'd like a mix of 1 and 2.

Funnily I think 2001 was a mix of all three. Sometimes memorable - other times forgetable.

[Witt]

1997 was the best season i've ever watched in terms of competitiveness between the teams. You'd approach a weekend thinking that as many as 6 or 7 teams were in with a chance of the win. Prost was strong and should have (would have?) won races that year, but fate dealt a crule hand in Canada. Hill should have won in Hungary and later just missed the pole at Jerez by a tenth or two. Jordan would have won in Argentina if Fisi and Ralf Schumacher didn't collide, and once again could have won in Germany if Berger wasn't so fired up in the wake of his dad's death. Hakkinen could have won as many as 5 races that year, but due to reliability it was heartbreak after heartbrake for him. Ironically, if hakkinen had won those races he dropped out of, Schumacher would most likely have been world champ as it was always JV that seemed to gain an extra 4 points from other's misfortune (that's not a dig, just the way it was).

And to boot, there was a championship showdown that ended with a bang, and Hakkinen won his first race on the last lap of the last race of the season. Too bad it was all rigged, but at the time it was such a feeling.

And just when all these teams were competive, the rules changed for 1998.

Sorry, not really on topic, but 1997 is my favourite season (that i actually watched live)!

[jimm]

Unfortunately, the years to watch F1 were in the 80's.

For a taste:

1982-A tragic year because of the death of GV and injury to Pironi but no match in unpredictability.. No one won more than two races all year yeilding 11 different winners for 7 different teams. The WDC only won one race (that season and it was the first of his career: Rosberg)

1983-4 drivers from 3 different teams were in the WDC at the last race and there were 8 different winners from 6 different teams

1984-Compared to the previous 2 years a borring year because it was a walkaway between the 2 Mclaren drivers. By today's standards it would have been considered one of the better years of the past decade. Still 6 different winners from 4 different teams and the WDC was decided by only 0.5 point.

1985-8 different drivers won races for 5 different teams , the leader of the WDC at half way lost the WDC.

1987-3 different drivers in the hunt in the last race, the WDC was won by a driver clearly driving an inferior car, 5 different winners from 4 teams....The next year starts the cycle we are in now with heavy domination by few teams

[Paco]

97vs2005

The reason soo many fans feel 97 was so much more competitive in my opinion was because of 5 "X" factors not really present in 2005 (By the way, I didn't find this season all that interesting and for the first time in 5 years, actually missed races for disinterest rather than other commitments!

1. The fact that Michael, Jacques, Mika, Coultard, Irvine, Alesi etc. were giving it their all week in and week out. Plus, the drivers back then were much more assertive and on each then today's political drivers.

I can't recall many races where teams where sitting back just collecting points the way Renault did this year and basically, so cordially to one another on and off the track.

Plus, the past few dull years due to the politics at Ferrari and #1 driver status made it artificially interesting this year. Considering the Renault "I'll take 2nd place , it's amazing soo many fans think so highly of this season.

The other 4 X factors were:

2. FIA - Penalizing Jacques and giving Williams what I considered a handicap that year.

3. Lack of Reliability: unlike this season, almost all of the teams had by today's standard, horrible realibility.

4. Qualifying: Was far far more interesting back then, vs. the farce that it has been the past few seasons.

5. Newey and Renault departing effect, the Williams team was lagging in development at the end of the year and destablized.

Jacques did make a few mistakes and as did most of the drivers including Michael due to the fact they were on the edge and always at the outermost limit.

I can't help but feel that today's "Politically correct" formula1 and lack of teams coming out and givng it there all lap after and allowing their drivers to race on another week in and week out is ruining the sport. Plus, all the ridiculous rule changes every year are not a help.

It's not the money and manufacturers that is ruining F1, it's the FIA and there insistance on

1. Not bringing back slicks
2. Not bringing back a proven qualifying format (I'd like to see parc ferme with 1997 qualifying but allowing the team refuel prior to the installation lap)
3. Racing on qualifying fuel

and a couple of select teams not allowing their drivers to race one another lap after lap.

Times change, teams change... it's too bad though that the !!racing!! in Formula1 is less important than making silly changes claiming to be a cost saving effort when everyone clearly see's that none of the changes have actually saved a dime and have only lead to escalating costs!

Paco


P.S. Someone should send Bernie and Max a link to this thread... then again, they'd probably just pat themselves on the back.

[John B]

JV did receive good fortune in a number of 1997 races, but early on he lost two likely wins himself. Australia he was on pole by two seconds IIRC before being Irvinated at the first corner. Then a couple races later he lost a likely win at Imola to an engine, giving HHF his first win.

I didn't think the late 1990s had the same zest as the 1980s, but time has shown we were lucky to witness championship fights in several consequtive seasons, though fight is a loosely applicable word for 1999.


...and Paco and others above, I agree the rules changes since 97 have produced a dumbed down product (not the only form of motorsport this has occured in in the 21st century)

[Paco]

Originally posted by gerry nassar
But what marks 1997 as such a memorable year in terms of competitiveness was the grid for Jerez. No matter how contrived it may have been - to have JV, MS and Frentzen all on the same lap time filling the top 3 spots on the grid - with the current WDC in 4th in an Arrows and the future champions Mclaren right behind him - really summed up what a great season it had been.

Well said

Personally, I can't see 1997 ever being repeated again in the near future. The drivers are far to friendly with one another and the young guys are PR dreams. Most of the great seasons in F1 usually had an element of volatility to them, that made you want to tune and see what was going to happen next as it was truly unpredictable.

Today, you can almost write the Sunday evening/Monday edition news story for the race on Saturday without evening watching the event.

Paco

[metz]

I think 2005 was one of the best years.

Maybe to those fans that only watch the winners, it seemed non-competitive or a boring year. :

Those of us also watching the mid field found this season very interesting.

In particular, one year ago, we were all touting the season as the "teammate" season.

Who didn't wonder how JPM would do against Kimi?
Who didn't wonder how JV would make out?
Who wasn't looking forward to the Webber/Heidfeld duel?
Who didn't want to compare Fisi with Alonso?
Who was going to win out at Toyota with two new drivers?
Who didn't wanted to see if DC still had it?

So, looking at the duel of the teammates, and looking at the mid field, I'd say we had a very interesting year...

I can't say that 2006 is lining up as interesting as 2005 did.

[SeanValen]

1997
Schumacher against the Williams

Last year of Slick tyres

Schumacher's Monaco 97 wet win-JV may have had the best car lol, but give Michael the rain, makes the rest look like children.
Schumacher's Spa 97 wet win

JV, HHF AND MS all setting the same time in quali in the last gp of 1997, amazing.

Nothing about 1997 was really JV vs MS, 1997 was a Schumacher against the competitive williams, it's ashame Jerez had to end the season that way, MS deserved the title on his driving alone that season, JV was a embarissment having still to fight for the title in the last 30 mins of the season, but then again, I don't think any team has an answer in drivers for MS, they've all needed more performance to really beat Michael.

2005 season piss poor, why? When did Michael, ALonso, Kimi really do battle for gps? The last battles we saw, were in 2003, a little bit of Montyoa and MS, a little bit of Kimi and MS, not much, a little bit of Alonso and MS, not muich.

Then you gotta go back to 2001, and Schumi vs the williams boys and mclaren boys, overall ferrari were competitive, but michelin and wlillaims were strong on some tracks, so there was some fights to overcome.


We haven't still had a title championship across the season like Mika and Michael, the latter part of 2000 was magic.

So we got MS, Alonso and Kimi, but if the designers in the winter don't all go a good job for mclaren, renault and ferrari, gonna be another 2005, TAXI DRIVER season, one driver getting a advantage, next race losing it, then next race, getting it back, so every driver is competitive at different gps, but not always at the same time as their rival, how can there really be a tense race then, we gotta be lucky that 2006 gives MS, Alonso and Kimi cars to fight for wins, then we'll truely have a MEGA season we haven't had for a long time, we've had cool races now again, yeah, but a tense race after race championship,not with these drivers, and it'll be ashame if doesn't happen, as MS, Kim and Alonso are probabley the best drivers together in f1 we've had for a long time, as Irvine said. Ashame f1 has ****** up all the aero and rules, but as long as the cars are fairly competitive, we may just have the best season yet, and make 2005 look like pigs blood.

[jimm]

Originally posted by SeanValen
1997
Schumacher against the Williams

Last year of Slick tyres

Schumacher's Monaco 97 wet win-JV may have had the best car lol, but give Michael the rain, makes the rest look like children.
Schumacher's Spa 97 wet win

JV, HHF AND MS all setting the same time in quali in the last gp of 1997, amazing.

MS's win at monaco was also helped out by the Williams team insisting that both cars start on slicks. He most likely would have won anyway but not by the margin.

[SeanValen]

Originally posted by jimm


MS's win at monaco was also helped out by the Williams team insisting that both cars start on slicks. He most likely would have won anyway but not by the margin.

F1 is always a team effort, and right up until the last minute, MS was hedging his bets on the weather, he played a more vocal part in what he wanted for the race, he could of gone for sllcks as well, and he did race Hill with Slicks at Spa 95 while he was on wets, when he was coming from the back of the grid in the rain, talent met instinct and decision making, all gelled together at Monaco 97. Face it the rest were crap lol.




F1 lacked a proper rival for MS, Mika came close enough, thus respect was there, but he wasn't Senna, I think with Alonso and Kimi, we may have guys near fast enough for him, and that's what makes it exciting now, as long as they are all in good cars and if MS sticks around in 2007, all on the same tyres, and some wet races, and he's on form, maybe we can still get some good races in, we haven't had enough duels with these drivers, we don't have Senna any more, but we got MS, Kimi and Alonso, these 3 could make f1 exciting, but its' not up to them, but their teams to not **** it up!! reliability and performance, across the season, and no stupid drivers like Sato kicking people off the road and spoiling races.

[bira]

Originally posted by metz
Who didn't wonder how JPM would do against Kimi?
Who didn't wonder how JV would make out?
Who wasn't looking forward to the Webber/Heidfeld duel?
Who didn't want to compare Fisi with Alonso?
Who was going to win out at Toyota with two new drivers?
Who didn't wanted to see if DC still had it?

All these questions - if indeed they can be considered the epitome of a competitive year (which I don't agree with) - well, they were all answered in the very early stages of the season. None of them provided a long-lasting thrill and by the latter stages of the season the most suspenseful mystery was "when will Monteiro retire from a Grand Prix"...

[skittt]

Originally posted by John B
Throw out Indy, and all of the 2005 races were won by two teams.

As mentioned there simply were a greater number of competive cars competing for the top three. Williams had dominated 1996, but was coming back to the pack. Ferrari and later McLaren were on the way up. Renault supplied Benetton as well as Williams, giving them podium opportunities.
Bridgestone allowed Ligier/Prost on many occasions and Hill a couple times to run up front.

From what I remember, Williams was dominant early, slumped significantly in mid-season (both drivers got chewed out by Head after Germany), then got it together at the end. Then MS and Ferrari were strongest in mid-season when Williams was down, which had some part in them never sharing a podium.

Be interesting to see if this (not sharing podiums) was close to happening any other year - my guess is probably not.

BTW, me asking if 1997 was more competitive than 2005 was actually tongue-in-cheek... pretty obvious that with so many different drivers being on the podium in 1997 it was WAY more competitive than 2005 where if you were not driving a McLaren or a Renault it would be very difficult to be on the podium...

[amorandi]

Originally posted by SeanValen
1997
Schumacher against the Williams


Nothing about 1997 was really JV vs MS, 1997 was a Schumacher against the competitive williams, it's ashame Jerez had to end the season that way, MS deserved the title on his driving alone that season, JV was a embarissment having still to fight for the title in the last 30 mins of the season, but then again, I don't think any team has an answer in drivers for MS, they've all needed more performance to really beat Michael.

Really don't like to take part in the forums anymore, kind of had some unfair discussions a couple of years ago. But when I read such nonsense I can't help showing up. Please, tell me wise guy:

(i) Was there another driver racing for Williams in 1997?

(ii) Do you remember his name?

(iii) How many points behind Villeneuve was this driver at the end of 1997 F1 Champioship?

(iv) Now the one-million dollars question: how that unkown driver was rated at that time?

Regards,

[Rene]

Originally posted by SeanValen
1997
Schumacher against the Williams

Last year of Slick tyres

Schumacher's Monaco 97 wet win-JV may have had the best car lol, but give Michael the rain, makes the rest look like children.
Schumacher's Spa 97 wet win

JV, HHF AND MS all setting the same time in quali in the last gp of 1997, amazing.

Nothing about 1997 was really JV vs MS, 1997 was a Schumacher against the competitive williams, it's ashame Jerez had to end the season that way, MS deserved the title on his driving alone that season, JV was a embarissment having still to fight for the title in the last 30 mins of the season, but then again, I don't think any team has an answer in drivers for MS, they've all needed more performance to really beat Michael.

Can't help yourself can you?

To Quote MS himself (he knows a tad more about this than you or I)

"He is world champion! You don't achieve this by chance"

[jimm]

Originally posted by SeanValen



F1 is always a team effort, and right up until the last minute, MS was hedging his bets on the weather, he played a more vocal part in what he wanted for the race, he could of gone for sllcks as well, and he did race Hill with Slicks at Spa 95 while he was on wets, when he was coming from the back of the grid in the rain, talent met instinct and decision making, all gelled together at Monaco 97. Face it the rest were crap lol.




F1 lacked a proper rival for MS, Mika came close enough, thus respect was there, but he wasn't Senna, I think with Alonso and Kimi, we may have guys near fast enough for him, and that's what makes it exciting now, as long as they are all in good cars and if MS sticks around in 2007, all on the same tyres, and some wet races, and he's on form, maybe we can still get some good races in, we haven't had enough duels with these drivers, we don't have Senna any more, but we got MS, Kimi and Alonso, these 3 could make f1 exciting, but its' not up to them, but their teams to not **** it up!! reliability and performance, across the season, and no stupid drivers like Sato kicking people off the road and spoiling races.

F1 drivers...Crap??? I don't think so. As I have said before, even average F1 drivers are top drivers in almost any other series. So none are crap. Compared to any of us (included those of us who have raced cars in our misspent youth) they win easily.


I have always said that I think alot of MS's success was because of the relative lack of compitition..and agree the talent pool is finally getting back to where it was when Senna died and Prost retired. But I don't think that JV was bad and certainly showed HHF the way. That he is not on the level of MS/Senna is no insult, there have been only 10-15 drivers in the last 30 years that were.

As far as Williams goes, during their dominance, they were a team of engineers and, except for drivers with alot of expereince like Mansell and Senna, often would not listen to their drivers because in theory other setups were faster. THey did not turn around the car after Senna's death until after Mansell told them that they needed to make the changes that Hill had been recomending all along (I always thought that while he lacked the seat of the pants driving ability, Hill was very very good at setting a car up).


It is no secret that JV and Head were at odds alot over car set up. JV has some radical ideas. I am sure that some work better than others (like his set up that allowed the pass in Portugal in 96).

I think there was a problem in the working relationship that hurt JV's run that year and Monaco was an example. JV is hardly alone in this. How many WDC have returned after winning the WDC at Williams????

[Naushad78]

Originally posted by bira
My recollection of the 1997 season was that up until the last one or two races (Jerez certainly, but maybe to some degree Suzuka too - despite the DQ), the two Championship protagonists never battled each other. Ever. What makes this very interesting, is the fact that 1997 seems to be remembered as one of the most intense and dramatic title battles in recent years (and I share that perception).

It was just that their characters and their personal animosity offered a very dramatic face/off - but it was played out in the media, in the paddock, and not on track.

I even remember JV lamenting that fact after half of the season had gone by. He said that hopefully he'll be able to fight MS out on the track for once.

[santori]

Originally posted by SeanValen
1997
Schumacher against the Williams

Last year of Slick tyres

Schumacher's Monaco 97 wet win-JV may have had the best car lol, but give Michael the rain, makes the rest look like children.
Schumacher's Spa 97 wet win

JV, HHF AND MS all setting the same time in quali in the last gp of 1997, amazing.

Nothing about 1997 was really JV vs MS, 1997 was a Schumacher against the competitive williams, it's ashame Jerez had to end the season that way, MS deserved the title on his driving alone that season, JV was a embarissment having still to fight for the title in the last 30 mins of the season, but then again, I don't think any team has an answer in drivers for MS, they've all needed more performance to really beat Michael.

2005 season piss poor, why? When did Michael, ALonso, Kimi really do battle for gps? The last battles we saw, were in 2003, a little bit of Montyoa and MS, a little bit of Kimi and MS, not much, a little bit of Alonso and MS, not muich.

Then you gotta go back to 2001, and Schumi vs the williams boys and mclaren boys, overall ferrari were competitive, but michelin and wlillaims were strong on some tracks, so there was some fights to overcome.

bunny

[AD]

'97 was the best season I can remember in my time watching F1 (from around '92 onwards, '94 seriously).

Obviously being a Schumacher fan, '00 would rank up there; as well as '02 (Bernievision!!!). However for sheer quality, I like '97 better.

There was so much going on, this list is endless:

- That was Schumacher's best season driving wise I think. If you want to see why so many of us are fans of him, watch that season.

- I'm only beginning to appreciate Villeneuve now, back then I though he was a spoiled so and so. Now I realise that he'd speak his mind on things. The verbal spats with himself and Irvine were great crack

- Damon Hill. He only just got within the 107% qualifying time in Australia. Then he helped develop the Arrows car. Then there was Hungary! People talk about the Jerez qualifying. That summed up '97 for me, everything was so open. Don't forget that Hill was 4th that day, and he was something like 0.078s (my memory could be out there, but that figure is in my head) behind them.

- Jordan were up and coming really fast. Fisi went close in Hockenheim, and it was interesting to see the brother of Michael Schumacher starting out in F1. Interest here in Ireland, really soared for the next few years, it was great.

- Adrian Newey moved to McLaren in mid-season, they then started to become a real force as the year went one. How heartbreaking was it for Hakkinen that season? He was in a great position in a few races, but the car kept breaking down on him. Surely that elusive first win must come sometime.

- There was just so much else too. In Austria (I think), we had something like between 10-15 cars within 1 second on the grid! The season was just so even and tight.

- How could I forget Olivier Panis, being in with a shout right up unto his bad accident in Canada.

- Just so much happened. It really got me hooked from that year onwards. The rules were great, as the mechanical:aero grip ratio was probably at it's best since I've ever been watching F1 anyways!


I'll soon be going to the Nostalgia forum!!!!

[xype]

Originally posted by santori
bunny

Priceless!

[John B]

Originally posted by skittt
BTW, me asking if 1997 was more competitive than 2005 was actually tongue-in-cheek... pretty obvious that with so many different drivers being on the podium in 1997 it was WAY more competitive than 2005 where if you were not driving a McLaren or a Renault it would be very difficult to be on the podium...

I was just chipping in on several quotes addressing 2005 in the thread. And there are certainly people who do think it was competitive - I personally think that had more to do with MS and Ferrari not winning for the first time this century along with a few races enlived by artificial grid placings (Imola would fit there), but thats just MO.

I enjoyed 97 but would rank it somewhere below 1983 and 1986 and possibly a couple others. Had it not been for the somewhat unsatifactory final two races (the Suzuka joke with the DQ/appeal and the collison at Jerez) it would have been higher. The question I've always asked is whether FIA would have had the balls to DQ Schumacher and Ferrari's first title in 17 yrs if he had been the retiree, as they threatened before the event.

[ILI]

I rate best 1997, 1998, 1999,2000 and 2005.
And ofcourse those Senna-Prost seasons.

[boostpressure]

Originally posted by SeanValen
[BNothing about 1997 was really JV vs MS, 1997 was a Schumacher against the competitive williams, it's ashame Jerez had to end the season that way, MS deserved the title on his driving alone that season, JV was a embarissment having still to fight for the title in the last 30 mins of the season, but then again, I don't think any team has an answer in drivers for MS, they've all needed more performance to really beat Michael.[/B]

that's a bit askew my friend.

to say JV was an embarrassment to still be fighting for the title at Jerez is pretty pathetic. Especially when you consider Hakkinen was still fighting for the title in 1998/99 right up until the last round, once against Irvine. Jacques drove a great year, in only his 2nd year of F1 which many people underestimate. He made mistakes, he dominated at times, he battled hard. It was a great year for competitiveness, many teams at times were quite strong, something we havn't had since. Yet Jacques still won 7 races and absolutely dominated qualifying with 10 poles. It was Schumachers very special ability and the improvement of Ferrari which really made Jacques work for it.

As for on track battles, there was alot of incidents during that particular year which meant they were split up for alot of the time. However it made Japan 1997, with Jacques and Michael storming down the straight inches apart (JV coming out of the pits) thrilling to watch, then Ferrari's tactical brilliance to shaft Villeneuve with Irvine playing roadblock was great too. Then Jerez was two hard headed, fiesty racers giving it there all, a high speed game of chess with Villeneuve throwing caution to the wind to get past MS and it worked. It was a great pressure move from Jacques.

I recall they were on track in brazil 1997 but Jacques breezed past MS on the straight and dominated, MS fell back to 5th. Also at Britain they were tailing each other up front until JV was held up for 33 secs at a pitstop and then MS retired. Same with Imola until JV retired. It wasn't that they weren't battling on track, it was that neither finished the same races up front together.

In my opinion, it had everything MS 'v' Hakkinen didn't have, including the extra competition. 98 and 2000 had 2 teams winning races and constantly up front. 1997 was wide open at times. Add the Senna/Prost bitterness and the fact that Jacques was a maverick on and off the track and you can see why so many people think its a shame JV threw away the potentail for more years battling MS in his prime just to go start BAR.........

[boostpressure]

Originally posted by capture_the_flag
This is one of the most stunning coincidence in F1 IMHO. So why? Two contenders, a mediocre one in a great car, and a great one in a mediocre car, and they have outscored the whole field. BUT! they never met on the podium that year. And it was only one race where none of them reached the podium. Monza. So the chart:

OZ: Schu 2.
Bra: Vill 1.
Arg: Vill 1.
SM: Schu 2.
Mon: Schu 1.
Esp: Vill 1.
Can: Schu 1.
Fra: Schu 1.
GB: Vill 1.
Ger: Schu 2.
Hun: Vill 1.
Bel: Schu 1.
Ita: the odd man!!!
Aut: Vill 1.
Lux: Vill 1.
Jap: Schu 1.
EU: Vill 3.

It's kinda interesting, ain't it?

your a joke.

[SeanValen]

Originally posted by jimm



F1 drivers...Crap??? I don't think so.

Looking back at my post, I can see where my flaws were, none of us are perfect, what I should of said is: F1 drivers are amongst the best in the world, but at times, and especially in the rain, Michael makes them look like amateurs.

[boostpressure]

Originally posted by SeanValen



Looking back at my post, I can see where my flaws were, none of us are perfect, what I should of said is: F1 drivers are amongst the best in the world, but at times, and especially in the rain, Michael makes them look like amateurs.

that is very correct seanvalen, MS has made everyone he has raced against in the last 10 or so years look like amateurs at some point. I actually don't see how people can put KR and FA in the same league as him, even with his form of last year. It was obvious he didn't have the machinery to get near FA or KR, alot like 1996 actually. It will be really interesting to see what he does this year if Ferrari get back on song.

As good as they are, obviously, I think this Raikkonen/Alonso on the same level as past his best Michael is somewhat premature.......

[Arrow]

It was a great season. I actually remember it like yesterday, while I can barely remember 2004 at all.
In hindsight JV has been unfairly bashed for his season that year. He was only in his second season and against arguably the greatest driver of all time, and he won no worse than an experienced Mika did in 98 and 99.
Even though he screwed up a number of races he was actually quite dependable and solid in most of the others, unlike Frentzen.

[man]

While I wouldn't go so far as to say 1997 was a 'great' season, it was perhaps the last season where I would watch a race with anticipation. For me, the key moment was Hockenheim when old Gerhard gave the kids a lesson to remember. The weekend demonstrated that if Gerhard had the dull, single-minded approach of a Senna or Schumacher he could have been champion. But he was a well-balanced personality unlike the two mentioned champions and so would have the odd weekend where he simply couldn't be bothered!

After 1997, I find it difficult to distinguish one race/car/driver/team/track from another!