122 replies to this topic

[Powersteer]

Jacques has made controversial comments in the recent past yet some of his interviews shows just how sharp and astute he can be. In the Youtube video it just goes to show how detail he is in understanding and explaining. I have seen many videos and article on past Formula 1 cars but here he does give a little more.

Gille Villeneuve's Ferrari 312

[4Wheeldrift]

Very nice video.

I think some of JV's controversy was part of his outward political psycology. I have always found that behind the bluster there is a lot of sense in what he says, and certainly he was one of the few drivers of his era to cut through some of the corporate politics.

However all that is seen through the prism of the brash son of a former champion jumping into the best car and winning 11 GP in two seasons and no more thereafter. If he had gone elsewhere other than BAR and added another title and another dozen race wins his comments may be thought of more highly.

[former champ]

Originally posted by 4Wheeldrift
Very nice video.

I think some of JV's controversy was part of his outward political psycology. I have always found that behind the bluster there is a lot of sense in what he says, and certainly he was one of the few drivers of his era to cut through some of the corporate politics.

However all that is seen through the prism of the brash son of a former champion jumping into the best car and winning 11 GP in two seasons and no more thereafter. If he had gone elsewhere other than BAR and added another title and another dozen race wins his comments may be thought of more highly.

that second paragraph is spot on. Well said.

BTW nice vid also.

[lattitude]

Originally posted by 4Wheeldrift
Very nice video.

I think some of JV's controversy was part of his outward political psycology. I have always found that behind the bluster there is a lot of sense in what he says, and certainly he was one of the few drivers of his era to cut through some of the corporate politics.

However all that is seen through the prism of the brash son of a former champion jumping into the best car and winning 11 GP in two seasons and no more thereafter. If he had gone elsewhere other than BAR and added another title and another dozen race wins his comments may be thought of more highly.

I dont think so,..his championship is more of a fluke, if he had been to other team other than BAR, he would still be an also ran.
If you analyse his car setup and driving style, he is certainly not the best and not a championship material, you can see that he is also bad in rain.

Jacques Villeneuve had been to BMW team and top notch Renault team, yet his performance is at best, a midfield driver performance.

[4Wheeldrift]

Originally posted by lattitude


I dont think so,..his championship is more of a fluke, if he had been to other team other than BAR, he would still be an also ran.
If you analyse his car setup and driving style, he is certainly not the best and not a championship material, you can see that he is also bad in rain.

Jacques Villeneuve had been to BMW team and top notch Renault team, yet his performance is at best, a midfield driver performance.

I never said he was the best ever. However he has more talent than a lot of drivers out there and for several years anywhere was better than BAR. He kept the number one on the car at Williams despite the Meccachrome situation - he knew he was going to BAR in 1999 regardless. If he hadn't have got caught up in the "Tyrrell revival" and emulating MS at Ferrari he could have got into anything that was better than any car he drove since then, including the Renault in 2004. He could probably have found a race winning seat at Jordan at the bottom end of his aspirations.

As you say he has a peculiar driving style and car-setup and the 2004 Renault was a peculiar car.

[Powersteer]

Originally posted by lattitude


I dont think so,..his championship is more of a fluke, if he had been to other team other than BAR, he would still be an also ran.
If you analyse his car setup and driving style, he is certainly not the best and not a championship material, you can see that he is also bad in rain.

Jacques Villeneuve had been to BMW team and top notch Renault team, yet his performance is at best, a midfield driver performance.

What do you think about his insight of his fathers Formula 1 car? I thought it was remarkable and the way he exposed the danger of old time Formula 1. I guess he would be one to know as his father was killed in one.

[4Wheeldrift]

I should have said his insight was very interesting. As you say his Dad died in a car of that era but also JV has had some major wipeouts himself and so can not only relate to the fate of his father but to how he would approach racing in such a car.

[skinnylizard]

i didnt know you could fluke into a championship...

[Ferrari_F1_fan_2001]

Originally posted by skinnylizard
i didnt know you could fluke into a championship...

Me neither

[COUGAR508]

I think the car in the Jacques clip was the Ferrari 312T3 from 1978 - one of the most beautiful F1 cars ever.

[SlateGray]

Originally posted by lattitude
not a championship material

[schead]

Originally posted by lattitude


I dont think so,..his championship is more of a fluke, if he had been to other team other than BAR, he would still be an also ran.
If you analyse his car setup and driving style, he is certainly not the best and not a championship material, you can see that he is also bad in rain.

Jacques Villeneuve had been to BMW team and top notch Renault team, yet his performance is at best, a midfield driver performance.

It is funny how people have such selective memory. The 1997 Williams was the fastest on the grid, but by no means dominant. The 1996 Williams that took Hill to the championship, (and which Villeneuve took the championship to the final race in his rookie season), was FAR more dominant. As was the 1992 Williams that took Mansell to his only WDC. As was the 1994 and 1995 Bennetton, and 2002, and 2004 Ferrari that took Schumacher to 4 of his 7 WDC's, (in the case of the 1994 car, he STILL had to ram his opponent off the track to win). As was the 1988 McLaren that gave Senna his first WDC, and the 1989 McLaren and the 1993 Williams that Prost won with.

So, by your definition, Schumacher, Hill, Mansell, Prost, and Senna were all undeserving champions because they dared to win in dominant cars.

[Zmeej]

Powersteer

An oldie (by now) but a goodie

IIRC, that dates from 2004. Cool to see him display a mix of affection for the old technology and reservations about the lack of safety features -- his respect for which is not often conceded.


And of course, for bashers like lattitude, yet another opportunity to exercise their right to COMPLETELY ignore the content of the video that is the point of the thread and bring up their tired canards.

[RTX]

Originally posted by skinnylizard
i didnt know you could fluke into a championship...

Most people think so because his car was so dominant over Michaels.

[Wouter]

Originally posted by RTX


Most people think so because his car was so dominant over Michaels.

If Villeneuve had midfield performance in 1997, what does this say about Frentzen? And why was Frentzen beaten so comprehensively by Schmuacher if the car was so dominant?

[lattitude]

Originally posted by schead




It is funny how people have such selective memory. The 1997 Williams was the fastest on the grid, but by no means dominant. The 1996 Williams that took Hill to the championship, (and which Villeneuve took the championship to the final race in his rookie season), was FAR more dominant. As was the 1992 Williams that took Mansell to his only WDC. As was the 1994 and 1995 Bennetton, and 2002, and 2004 Ferrari that took Schumacher to 4 of his 7 WDC's, (in the case of the 1994 car, he STILL had to ram his opponent off the track to win). As was the 1988 McLaren that gave Senna his first WDC, and the 1989 McLaren and the 1993 Williams that Prost won with.

So, by your definition, Schumacher, Hill, Mansell, Prost, and Senna were all undeserving champions because they dared to win in dominant cars.

Schumi and Prost and Senna are all very deserving champions, because they titles after titles as they proved that they are real Championship material.

But JV is different, he just have a flucked 1997 title, and after that, his driving is not like a champion at all, he is just lucky his Williams can adapt to his weird driving and setup style, or he just managed to gel everything together in 1997 with alot of help with good luck.

[pkrash]

CART champ. Indy 500, 2nd in his first F1 WDC, wins in his 2nd year.
Drives crap the rest of his F1 years.
Going for a LeMans win.
Pretty much a fluke of a racing career.
Please don't feed the troll.

[fastlegs]

Originally posted by lattitude



Schumi and Prost and Senna are all very deserving champions, because they titles after titles as they proved that they are real Championship material.

But JV is different, he just have a flucked 1997 title, and after that, his driving is not like a champion at all, he is just lucky his Williams can adapt to his weird driving and setup style, or he just managed to gel everything together in 1997 with alot of help with good luck.

What a load of bullshit.

JV did what was expected of him. He won the title.

[lattitude]

Originally posted by pkrash
CART champ. Indy 500, 2nd in his first F1 WDC, wins in his 2nd year.
Drives crap the rest of his F1 years.
Going for a LeMans win.
Pretty much a fluke of a racing career.
Please don't feed the troll.

You call BAR crap? the same car Button outperformed him.

And you call BMW Sauber and Renault crap? Crap or no crap, JV's teammates outperformed him more often than JV outperforming them, ...period.

[imaginesix]

The video is as much about BAR, Button, BMW, Sauber, and Renault as it is about your dull ax.

[former champ]

Originally posted by lattitude


You call BAR crap? the same car Button outperformed him.

And you call BMW Sauber and Renault crap? Crap or no crap, JV's teammates outperformed him more often than JV outperforming them, ...period.

what a load of bullshit.

lattitude, get over 1997 to start with. The guy won the World Title in his 2nd year in a car which was dominant for the first 5 or so races, that's it. If JV is undeserving, then so is Mansell, Hill, Hakkinen, Rosberg, Andretti etc etc, you get my drift?

and, BTW, the measure of Jacques talent should be shown in seasons 1998-2001, where he was bloody impressive in poor machinery. had he not gone to BAR and taken up a McLaren or Renault seat in 99/00/01, he could easily have been a multiple World Champion. No doubt.

You need to brush up on your F1 history a bit mate. Start with Autosport/Autocourse reviews of those years and see what people, with far more of an idea than you, thought of Villeneuve in his prime.

[lattitude]

Originally posted by former champ


what a load of bullshit.

lattitude, get over 1997 to start with. The guy won the World Title in his 2nd year in a car which was dominant for the first 5 or so races, that's it. If JV is undeserving, then so is Mansell, Hill, Hakkinen, Rosberg, Andretti etc etc, you get my drift?

and, BTW, the measure of Jacques talent should be shown in seasons 1998-2001, where he was bloody impressive in poor machinery. had he not gone to BAR and taken up a McLaren or Renault seat in 99/00/01, he could easily have been a multiple World Champion. No doubt.

You need to brush up on your F1 history a bit mate. Start with Autosport/Autocourse reviews of those years and see what people, with far more of an idea than you, thought of Villeneuve in his prime.

If JV was in McLaren from 1998 - 2001, his performance level would be just like DC, or slightly worse.

The BAR was a good car, Button proved that and beat JV hands down in JV's own backyard.

[former champ]

Originally posted by lattitude



If JV was in McLaren from 1998 - 2001, his performance level would be just like DC, or slightly worse.

The BAR was a good car, Button proved that and beat JV hands down in JV's own backyard.

funny, I don't remember Button racing for BAR in 99/00 or 01.

whatever you say expert.

[Flynnie]

I enjoy a good JV bash as much as anyone, but he was a good driver. Not of the absolute top drawer in the history of F1, not as good as his dad, but better than several other F1 champions, and hence a very good driver. He wasn't a big wet weather guy and he was very much off the pace at a few circuits which didn't suit his driving style. But he was good.

The biggest mistake he made was thinking his tennis coach in high school was capable of running a Formula One team. For all the self-belief in JV as a cool, calm, collected, worldly guy, he was stunningly naive in this aspect.

[lattitude]

Originally posted by Flynnie
I enjoy a good JV bash as much as anyone, but he was a good driver. Not of the absolute top drawer in the history of F1, not as good as his dad, but better than several other F1 champions, and hence a very good driver. He wasn't a big wet weather guy and he was very much off the pace at a few circuits which didn't suit his driving style. But he was good.

The biggest mistake he made was thinking his tennis coach in high school was capable of running a Formula One team. For all the self-belief in JV as a cool, calm, collected, worldly guy, he was stunningly naive in this aspect.

To be honest, JV is one of the "worse" champions, all champions are good drivers, but he is one of the bottom end in terms of talent.

Even if he had gone to the correct team in 1998, he would not have won another title, Patrick Head proves that JV has weird driving styles and weird setup skills, which made his wins lucky.

[former champ]

Originally posted by lattitude


To be honest, JV is one of the "worse" champions, all champions are good drivers, but he is one of the bottom end in terms of talent.

Even if he had gone to the correct team in 1998, he would not have won another title, Patrick Head proves that JV has weird driving styles and weird setup skills, which made his wins lucky.

you should be banned from this BB for being so unknowledgable and stinking up the threads with what is, bluntly, utter crap.

I have no problem with people's differing opinions when they know what they are on about. You sir have no clue whatsoever. To start with, anyone who claims any driver to be a 'worse' champion than someone else, no matter what the series, knows jack **** about motorsport in general.

think about it lattitude.

[lattitude]

isn't it right to say that JV is not really the best champion F1 had?

Are you trying to argue JV is better than Schumi, Mika, Prost, Senna, Mansell, Lauda, Fangio?

If he is not better than them, the word to use is JV is worse champion than the above list. Dont know whats your problem with this statement.

[former champ]

Originally posted by lattitude
isn't it right to say that JV is not really the best champion F1 had?

Are you trying to argue JV is better than Schumi, Mika, Prost, Senna, Mansell, Lauda, Fangio?

If he is not better than them, the word to use is JV is worse champion than the above list. Dont know whats your problem with this statement.

there is no such thing as a worse champion. Its like saying Jim Clark is worse than Senna because he won 1 less title or he is FAR worse than Schumacher because he won 5 less.

There is no such thing as a worse champion. Some champions are better than others but you are wording it the way you are simply to put down Villeneuve and make it out like he fluked his World Championship. In his 2nd year of F1.

and if you want to play that crap game, play it properly. Include other single World Champions and even maybe multiple champions. Because, at his best, Villeneuve was as good as a few of them. Like i said, you need a history lesson on this sport. Read up mate.

To claim a driver had lucky wins because of his set-ups and driving styles is simply stupid. Villeneuve was a very gutsy, brave and super quick driver, very very quick through fast corners and had, according to some in the know, great throttle control. Hence the reason he was so ballsy through fast turns like 130R, becketts and Eau Rouge. He could also be very quick in the wet too, despite coming from IndyCars, watch Canada 2000 and see just how quick he could be. Jacques problem with the wet was consistency, he was fast but never consistent with it. Dosen't mean he was useless in the wet or his 'set-up' was crap for it.

The only reason he wasn't in contention for more titles was the poor machinery at his disposal. Going to BAR and sticking with them was his big mistake. His driving in some of those years was simply superb, 2000 being such a year. He wasn't offered big money to leave BAR just because his name was Villeneuve.

[djned]

ugh, here we go again, another thread turns into a flaming session.

anyway - Powersteer: thanks for the link, really interesting clip, not just because it came from jacques but from what i learned

[4Wheeldrift]

Originally posted by lattitude


To be honest, JV is one of the "worse" champions, all champions are good drivers, but he is one of the bottom end in terms of talent.

Even if he had gone to the correct team in 1998, he would not have won another title, Patrick Head proves that JV has weird driving styles and weird setup skills, which made his wins lucky.

It is true he liked unconventional set-ups. Coming from so much oval racing he liked to set each corner of the car up individually, for example. He liked a really short throttle movement, for example.

But to describe it as luck because someone's style or set-up gets them a GP win is essentially to say that every single race win in history is luck!

For example one of the most famous and crushing wet weather drives was Michael Schumacher at the 1997 Belgian GP. Everyone rightly raves about his wet weather skills. What you didn't see on TV, but people in the right places could see was that MS had his car and the spare car set up with full wet and intermediate settings. In those days of no pre-race parc-ferme he splashed around for several laps before the race swapping into each car and seeing how they compared. He then chose the best one and went to the grid.

I am not bashing MS here, i am trying to give an example of extreme set-up skill and of maximising the opportunities you have. JV, for example, did not have the same opportunity because Williams have a different racing philosophy to Ferrari.

The fact that JV would set-up a car in a way the team thought unconventional then go out and win with it is to his credit, not his detriment. It shows the skills he has. Just as MS did in 1997.

[Zmeej]

Interesting post 4Wheel

[skinnylizard]

another thing people forget is that when JVi came to F1 he became an immediate superstar, equal i think with MS if not more popular.

His pedigree Rookie of the year Indy, runner up Indy 500, Indy 500 winner in his second year (from 2 laps down)and the last Indy champ before the split. To say nothing of his last name.

The guy was committed, he drove 10,000 kms in Winter testing getting ready for F1 1996. He didn't luck into his pole position in Australia, the guy was preparing for it all the time. Ends up second due to mech problems and then wins the fourth time out.

The guy was a superstar by half time, his later years were terrible but for me 1996-1997 was a fantastic season and i was glad he won and did all he could. I would have hated him becoming an Alesi. Too much too soon, is better than none at all.

Also, he has all the rookie records (1996 - pole on debut, most wins in rookie season, most podiums, highest WDC finish 2nd, Lorenzo Bandini award)

[Oho]

Originally posted by former champ

had he not gone to BAR and taken up a McLaren or Renault seat in 99/00/01, he could easily have been a multiple World Champion. No doubt.

Bollocks, a lot of doubt. Only Ferrari and McLaren offered championship quality cars, at Ferrari Villeneuve would have had Schumacher in the other and at McLaren Häkkinen, whom I gather in consensus opinion are both significantly higher regarded than Villeneuve, in the other car to contend. Perhaps he would have prevailed, but not easily and certainly no without doubt.

[Zmeej]

Oho

Agree with you that prevailing over Schumi and Mika as teammates would have been far from a certainty for JV, but it remains as a tantalizing possibility.

As improbable as it would have been, if Jacques had been signed to Ferrari in '99, there's no question in my mind that the subsequent history of that marque would have been very different. The return of a Villeneuve to Ferrari would have been a sensation among tifosi and created a very strong alternate camp within the team. Michael would certainly not have benefitted from the abject submission offered up by Barrichello.

The German is not likely to have reached the win and pole totals he achieved, because the Canadian would have taken quite a few off him, and the fiasco of Austria 2002 would have been inconceivable with Jacques in the other seat.

While I don't consider JV the equal of the other drivers (he was mediocre-at-best in the rain, and never got the hang of Monaco), his presence at Maranello would have generated drama and competition the likes the of which the sport hadn't seen since the glory days of Prost/Mansell, Prost/Senna, Piquet/Mansell and Lauda/Prost.

IMO, a Villeneuve/Hakkinen combo at McLaren would have been one of the sweetest F1 has seen. I think both would have blossomed still further with the other pushing him. Of course, it could also simply have fizzled like the Kimi/Juancho tandem, which I also thought would be an unbeatable pairing.

Either way, we'll never know...



Interesting post, former champ

[Limits]

Originally posted by former champ


you should be banned from this BB for being so unknowledgable and stinking up the threads with what is, bluntly, utter crap.

I was thinking exactly that actually, but I had decided to restrain myself from posting it. But since you mention it...

Originally posted by skinnylizard

i didnt know you could fluke into a championship...

I think it is possible. I mean, I have not given up hope. But I must admit that is starting to look very unlikely. Oh well, I can still be the star at my local kart track.

[fastlegs]

Originally posted by former champ
had he not gone to BAR and taken up a McLaren or Renault seat in 99/00/01, he could easily have been a multiple World Champion. No doubt.

I totally agree.

Especially if he would of gone to McLaren. JV was "in the groove" at that point of his career and had he be given another car that was capable of winning he would of made the best of it.

What damaged JV's confidence along with his career was his wasted years at BAR.

[imaginesix]

IMO JV's best year as a driver was '98.

[Zmeej]

You're probably right, but my fave is still '96. A glorious arrival and a "what the hell, let's go for it" spirit, getting under Schumi's skin, blowing by him in Estoril...

Still think that he doesn't get enough credit for some of the drives he put in at BAR and at BMW/Sauber in his last year either.

[Radders]

I dont really want to get embroiled in yet another JV slagging session, however its interesting to note that the two most recent team mates he held his own against are now regarded as some of the hottest property on the grid. Massa is trouncing Raikonnen and Heidfeld is suddenly an amazing driver in everyone's opinion. Funny how times change, when Villenueve was team mates with them, everyone thought they were cr@p :

[skylark68]

Originally posted by lattitude


I dont think so,..his championship is more of a fluke, if he had been to other team other than BAR, he would still be an also ran.
If you analyse his car setup and driving style, he is certainly not the best and not a championship material, you can see that he is also bad in rain.

Jacques Villeneuve had been to BMW team and top notch Renault team, yet his performance is at best, a midfield driver performance.

I don't like to second guess someone's knowledge, but maybe you didn't follow F1 when Jacques started? He challenged Hill his first year, and won in his second. He was listed in Autosport in their top 50 drivers of all time. He was exciting to watch and created a buzz in F1.

Granted, he made a colosial error in his ill fated, ill timed move to BAR(f)™ but you simply cannot wash out his driving in 96/97. Those who ignore this are either rabbid JV haters or simply were not around when he entered F1.

[Lada Lover]

Why is JVi 3 seconds behind Bourdais?

[tifosi]

Originally posted by former champ


you should be banned from this BB for being so unknowledgable and stinking up the threads with what is, bluntly, utter crap.

Posts like lattitudes's actually make me like JV more.

[Burai]

"If you have a crash in this car, you will get hurt."

Understatement of the century. I couldn't believe it when he started flexing the sides and revealed that they were made of plastic. I'd always assumed that they were steel. The most astonishing thing is that more drivers weren't killed.

As for Jacques' racing career? Won the 500 and the title in CART's all-star glory years and won the F1 title 2nd time out. Not too shabby.

His later years were horrible, but I can't fault him for doing what he did because it all looked good on paper. Massive budget, factory Honda support, chassis by Reynard, team built around him. You'd be insane not to, particularly when his only other sensible option was a BMW-Williams team that seemed to be created to push Ralf Schumacher.

His only real mistake wasn't signing for BAR in the first place, but not bailing on them when it was obvious it had all gone wrong.

[MrAerodynamicist]

Originally posted by imaginesix
IMO JV's best year as a driver was '98.

Narrow it down even further; Hockenheim '98.

[fastlegs]

Originally posted by Lada Lover
Why is JVi 3 seconds behind Bourdais?

Could it be that JV hasn't driven a race car since last August?

[MrAerodynamicist]

Originally posted by Lada Lover
Why is JVi 3 seconds behind Bourdais?

Don't forget it's a three and a half minute lap, so three seconds isn't that bad, especially as in his own words, he wasn't trying out for single flying laps.

[4Wheeldrift]

Originally posted by Burai

His later years were horrible, but I can't fault him for doing what he did because it all looked good on paper. Massive budget, factory Honda support, chassis by Reynard, team built around him. You'd be insane not to, particularly when his only other sensible option was a BMW-Williams team that seemed to be created to push Ralf Schumacher.

His only real mistake wasn't signing for BAR in the first place, but not bailing on them when it was obvious it had all gone wrong.

Factory Honda support was later. When BAR started they had Supertec customer engines. I agree the team being built around him must have been attractive - except that the components were either old (the Supertec) or unproven - a Reynard F1 chassisand the team principal was his manager and former Skiing Instructor. Also, starting from the base of Tyrrell which had not won a race since 1983 was not going to help.

I agree he should have bailed earlier however i suspect he was damaged goods in terms of the eyes of the other team owners - he would have been an expensive signing after driving round at the back of the grid.

[Flynnie]

Originally posted by 4Wheeldrift


Factory Honda support was later. When BAR started they had Supertec customer engines. I agree the team being built around him must have been attractive - except that the components were either old (the Supertec) or unproven - a Reynard F1 chassisand the team principal was his manager and former Skiing Instructor. Also, starting from the base of Tyrrell which had not won a race since 1983 was not going to help.

I agree he should have bailed earlier however i suspect he was damaged goods in terms of the eyes of the other team owners - he would have been an expensive signing after driving round at the back of the grid.

To be fair to him, Reynard had a good reputation at the time and it was a marque he was familiar with, having driven their cars in CART. The Supertecs were old, but they weren't horrible. Plus I believe people did see Tyrrell as a reasonably well run team who did the best with their limited budget, something that wasn't a problem with BAT's money.

I don't think anybody expected them to be as miserable as they were, though there was a certain amount of glee in the paddock and amongst fans due to the rather arrogant predictions by Pollock of competing for the front row in Melbourne.

[Jacquesback]

Originally posted by Flynnie

To be fair to him, Reynard had a good reputation

It was actually Adrian who made the "we will win our first race" prediction not Craig.

[4Wheeldrift]

Originally posted by Flynnie

To be fair to him, Reynard had a good reputation at the time and it was a marque he was familiar with, having driven their cars in CART. The Supertecs were old, but they weren't horrible. Plus I believe people did see Tyrrell as a reasonably well run team who did the best with their limited budget, something that wasn't a problem with BAT's money.

I don't think anybody expected them to be as miserable as they were, though there was a certain amount of glee in the paddock and amongst fans due to the rather arrogant predictions by Pollock of competing for the front row in Melbourne.

I am something of a JV fan. However i think one of his problems was a constant desire to prove himself. I remember reading an interview with him were he was upset by the perceived attitude in the paddock "is that Schumacher is a God and everyone else is a wanker" if i remember the quote. GP driver's egos are pretty big and JV is no exception. Also he had a record with elements in it MS would never have (such as the Indy500 win). This gave me the impression that one of his motivations with BAR was to start in 1999 what MS had started and done so well in 1996 with Ferrari. The problem was the components that weren't there in Tyrrell/BAT/Reynard/Supertec (later Honda) that were there in Ferrari (which had of course managed a win in 1995) or had been brought in by Schumacher (i.e. Ross Brawn and Rory Byrne).

On that basis i could see why he would give it a couple of years to turn around. But he took his eye of his own sotck to an extent. He effectively wasted a year in '98 waiting to go to BAR and as it turns out waste another few years all the time he is towards the back of the grid.

And you are abosolutely right about the glee. The "Tradition of Excellence" slogan might have worked with the Tyrrell name, but given that BAR kept this "new team" persona it just annoyed people who had spent years getting to where they were. The Reynard aim of winning the first race just wound them up further.