Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Emmcee

Villeneuve's F1 Mistakes

19 posts in this topic

Here's a nice story giving you some insight into how the Canadian saw his career. Hindsight is a beautiful thing, I've always wondered how he got his helmet on over that fat head, nice to see nothing's changed.

http://www.gptoday.com/full_story/view/553200/Jacques_Villeneuve_reveals_F1_career_mistakes/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's right with what he says though. Had he gone to Renault in 2002 or to McLaren after his Williams stint, who knows what might have been. He doesn't claim he would have been all dominating.

I respect him in the sense that he stayed loyal to BAR and tried to make it work. Hindsight is too easy for us armchair experts to say he should have or could have. Back then, BAR actually were improving, they were getting podiums and looking on the up and up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah true but what would have mark webber done if he joined Renault instead of Williams in 2005? What if schumi didn't turn in in Villeneuve in Jerez? So many what ifs, IMO when a man looks back on what has happened with regret, there not sure of what there doing to begin with, they have no faith in decisions they've made or make and don't trust there instinct, always always go with your first instinct no matter how wrong it may seem. His full of it anyway as mclaren had already signed Coulthard to a 3 year deal from 96 onwards so unless mclaren planned on running 3 cars or booting either Hakkinen or Coulthard, Villeneuve never had a chance to go to mclaren, that's just how I see it. He talks about himself and newey saying newey asked him to not accept the BAR offer, more along the lines of newey wished he could join mclaren that's sounds more like it and besides, he got a crack at Renault and when they were top dogs anyway and still couldn't do jack sorry Jacques with it. He had always talked himself up and having total disrepect for other drivers rubs me the wrong way also. Now in 1997 Williams had Montoya as test driver, now can Villeneuve fans honestly sit there and say Montoya wouldn't have got similar results to Jacques? Because IMO I firmly believe he could've and Iam not much of a Montoya fan but I will admit he could drive, as for Villeneuve, I thought he was quick until the 1998 regs came in and evened up the playing field to the point Frentzen started outpacing him, then massa out paced him at sauber to land the Ferrari seat the following year. After the 1998 season, he really struggled just to keep his teammate in check let alone achieving good results. IMO he has always been severely overrated when it came to formula one and his results sadly show that. His wins only came when he had a competitive car, he never won another race after the 1997 Luxembourg GP. He was an incredible Indy car driver though I must say.

Edited by Emmcee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He didn't have a choice. He had a ton of cash invested in BAR and then Jenson arrived.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't know that, well there you go, would explain how he kept his seat after both Sato and Button outpaced him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

His still one of my heros but, yeah nah at the end of 1997, there were rumours going around that Hakkinens seat for 98 wasn't safe, that must be what his on about, I have heard Mclaren were interested in him in the late 90's, also there was a rumour that Damon Hill was going to end up at Mclaren too to replace hakkinen, be he went to Jordan instead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't for one second believe mclaren would've ditched mika, he was like massa at Ferrari but atleast mika got results. Hakkinen was competitive through his entire career, even before he notched up his first win in 1997. This only proves just how good Schumacher was IMO. You look at all previous successful drivers and no one in the history of the sport could stay as competitive as schumi for as long as schumi did. Weather schumi won the title or not, from 94 all the way up until the end of 2006, Schumacher was the one to beat if you wanted a title and that statistic is astonishing IMO. Even Ron Dennis tried to get into schumi's head in the early days by saying he was so impressive that he needs to take more care of himself as he was right on the limit all the time. He was almost unbeatable and Dennis tried to rattle him abit by saying he is consistently pushing the boundaries and something could happen.

Edited by Emmcee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know but his seat for 98 wasn't safe but, at the start of 97 he wasn't pulling the results, DC won in Melbourne n I think Hakkinen qualified in 17th for the Argentine Gp, but his results improved n look at where he is today

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nah Hakkinen suffered a few issues at the beginning of 97 as did Coulthard and yes he did qualify 17th for that race but ended up 5th, pretty darn good effort if you ask me. Both mclarens complained of handling issues at that GP due to the nature of the bumpy circuit. Mclaren made leaps and bounds in 97 if you concider there 95/96 campaigns but not for one second do I still believe mika would get the boot, if anyone it would be DC as Ron Dennis loved mika like a son. Regardless if the 98 regs came in or not, I beleive mclaren would be serious contenders for the 98 title and can you imagine if the regs didn't come in that year? We would have had Williams,Ferrari,Benetton,mclaren and Jordan all with the ability to win races and challenge for serious championship points. It could have been the most exciting and competitive season ever, but like always, politics distroyed everything.

Edited by Emmcee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True but they needed to do something to counter the ever-increasing cornering speeds, otherwise in 98 we could've had more winners but more injuries too!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The cars are not the issue and never have been, it's that they "out grew" circuits which then made it unsafe. yeah I agree we want to keep our drivers as safe as possible but once you start messing with the authenticity of the sport, groove tyres, narrow twitchy chassis, Drs,kers,ers, fuel flow regs, all these are intruding on the authenticity of the sport. Anything that's not created by the driver or car itself isn't authentic you see what I mean? It's like allowing hand balls in soccer all of a sudden or having a robot goal keeper to "reduce costs" lol. It's extreme what this sport has done over the years and I firmly believe it's the circuit safety that should be overhauled before anything is even concidered on the car. Drivers know the risks as do we and thats 99% of the buzz, knowing your right on the limit. You even get that same feeling in a kart when you nail a lap 100% on the limit. What happens when the next fatality happens? Because it will as it can't be 100% safe unless they erase the whole sport. Look at panis's accident at Montreal in 97 when he broke both legs, even today with the circuit safety we have and cars we do, if someone went of in the same place, it could very well end up with the same if not worse injury, heck even senna's accident could still happen today with the same result. All these issues there trying to rectify could and can very well still happen with similar or even worse consequences.

Edited by Emmcee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Villeneuve is the eighth worst WDC ever. Which is a pretty impressive thing to be.

Villeneuve had a short prime as a driver. I don't know why it's held against him. They can't all have enduring careers. That Schumacher was a title contender 12 years after he won his first is truly something.

If there's anyone Villeneuve reminds me of, it's Mario Andretti. Mediocre in F1 but for a year or two, totally overrated in America, actively not good in NASCAR, completely unable to win Le Mans, and totally overestimating the value of their own (often foolish) opinions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Villeneuve is the eighth worst WDC ever. Which is a pretty impressive thing to be.

Villeneuve had a short prime as a driver. I don't know why it's held against him. They can't all have enduring careers. That Schumacher was a title contender 12 years after he won his first is truly something.

If there's anyone Villeneuve reminds me of, it's Mario Andretti. Mediocre in F1 but for a year or two, totally overrated in America, actively not good in NASCAR, completely unable to win Le Mans, and totally overestimating the value of their own (often foolish) opinions.

Yeah exactly, that's what shows the different levels of "drivability" IMO, like I mentioned and just like you did, that Schumacher remaining competitive for as long as he did and on every single circuit they went to, is just phenominal, I even think if senna stayed around that, that's something he would even struggle to achieve and I hold senna just a tad higher than schumi, probably paper thin in difference. I always think about the battles Schumacher and senna could've had, though I think Schumacher would've beaten him, simply because Schumacher would've been in his prime and senna on his way out and that's all the difference would've been. The aggression and car control always remain, it's the speed that doesn't.

Edited by Emmcee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Villeneuve and Craig Pollock blew smoke up each other's backsides. One believed he was a top line driver and the other thought he could manage an F1 team. Turns out both were wrong.

Always remember the Belgium GP of 1997 which was wet then went to dry. Villeneuve was on pole, Schumacher started third I think. Anyway, I remember Schumacher passing Villeneuve early in the race whilst it was still wet around the outside of Rivage and before they had got to the next corner (the one that had no name for so many years) he had pulled about so many car length it was embarrassing. After that Villeneuve went backwards in the race and Schumacher went on to win it convincingly. I'd had my suspicions before that that he wasn't up to snuff, but that put the nail in the coffin.

I don't think Patrick Head was too unhappy when he left Williams at the end of 1998. He thought the 1997 title should have been won a lot sooner in the season, and not go down to the final race.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Villeneuve and Craig Pollock blew smoke up each other's backsides. One believed he was a top line driver and the other thought he could manage an F1 team. Turns out both were wrong.

Always remember the Belgium GP of 1997 which was wet then went to dry. Villeneuve was on pole, Schumacher started third I think. Anyway, I remember Schumacher passing Villeneuve early in the race whilst it was still wet around the outside of Rivage and before they had got to the next corner (the one that had no name for so many years) he had pulled about so many car length it was embarrassing. After that Villeneuve went backwards in the race and Schumacher went on to win it convincingly. I'd had my suspicions before that that he wasn't up to snuff, but that put the nail in the coffin.

I don't think Patrick Head was too unhappy when he left Williams at the end of 1998. He thought the 1997 title should have been won a lot sooner in the season, and not go down to the final race.

Yep totally agree, the Williams was far more superior to win the title sooner, if Villeneuve didnt make so many mistakes and is Schumacher didn't get taken of at the Nurburgring by his younger brother in his 100th GP, that would've been enough to swing the title in schumis favour and besides, frentzen came on a lot stronger than Villeneuve come the back end of the season, what was it? Like five podiums in the last six races or something like that for frentzen? IMO the Williams car was vastly more dominant, it should've cruised to both titles considering they had two drivers able to win races not one like Ferrari. That was also the second time Schumacher made Villeneuve look very ordinary, look at Spain in 96 in a Ferrari severely down on power and reliability compared to the Williams, yet drove around the outside of Villeneuve and bolted of into the distance, Villeneuve was a total shocker in the wet.

Edited by Emmcee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep totally agree, the Williams was far more superior to win the title sooner, if Villeneuve didnt make so many mistakes and is Schumacher didn't get taken of at the Nurburgring by his younger brother in his 100th GP, that would've been enough to swing the title in schumis favour and besides, frentzen came on a lot stronger than Villeneuve come the back end of the season, what was it? Like five podiums in the last six races or something like that for frentzen? IMO the Williams car was vastly more dominant, it should've cruised to both titles considering they had two drivers able to win races not one like Ferrari. That was also the second time Schumacher made Villeneuve look very ordinary, look at Spain in 96 in a Ferrari severely down on power and reliability compared to the Williams, yet drove around the outside of Villeneuve and bolted of into the distance, Villeneuve was a total shocker in the wet.

Spain 1996 was one of Schumacher's greatest victories. He made the entire field look 2nd rate that day. You're right about Villeneuve in the wet and also around Monaco he was never much cop. I don't think there was much finesse or adaptability in his driving style. Sure he'd keep the foot in and brave it out with anyone on the brakes, no question. But you need more than that particularly in the wet and on street circuits and that is when he was found wanting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Monaco 97 he and Williams simply got out played by Schumacher and Ferrari and it was a very simar Grand Prix to Spain the year before. Schumacher just blitzed the field.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0