Jacques Villeneuve - was he any good?
Discussion
So I've been listening to the Estoril 1996 episode of Bring Back the V10s and obviously the memorable thing about that was a wonderful overtake around the outside of that long parabolica last turn over Schumacher by JV.
Comes from Indycar as a really young champion and won the Indy 500.
In 1996 and 1997 he had by far the best car - he took pole and almost won on his debut until the oil issue - he won races and took it to the last round (albeit with Damon doing his best to throw it away in the second half of 1996) in his first year and then won the title in his second but had a genuine malaise during the middle of the year.
1998 the Williams was nowhere but occasionally he produced the goods with what he had with Hockenheim being the race of the year for him starting and finishing 3rd behind dominant McLarens and he beat HHF easily over the two seasons they were team mates.
1999 he usually qualified quite well and ran just behind the best but the car was epically unreliable and then 2000 he had a really, really solid year.
Then everything after that was a mess.
What happened to the talent from the early days? He was known I think for some weird habits/quirks and setting up a car in a strange way from what I can gather along with having his up and down shift on one paddle which again is a strange thing (albeit I guess it doesn't make too much difference).
He's not exactly lit up WEC races or Le Mans but he's an F1 World Champion and was seriously quick when he wanted to be.
Obviously he's a rent-a-gob now too so he comes across as a strange bloke and you could argue he's just an old bloke ranting but he seemed to be quite odd, a bit of a maverick type when he was younger and winning too - perhaps inheriting it from his dad?
Where does he stack up in retrospect?
Comes from Indycar as a really young champion and won the Indy 500.
In 1996 and 1997 he had by far the best car - he took pole and almost won on his debut until the oil issue - he won races and took it to the last round (albeit with Damon doing his best to throw it away in the second half of 1996) in his first year and then won the title in his second but had a genuine malaise during the middle of the year.
1998 the Williams was nowhere but occasionally he produced the goods with what he had with Hockenheim being the race of the year for him starting and finishing 3rd behind dominant McLarens and he beat HHF easily over the two seasons they were team mates.
1999 he usually qualified quite well and ran just behind the best but the car was epically unreliable and then 2000 he had a really, really solid year.
Then everything after that was a mess.
What happened to the talent from the early days? He was known I think for some weird habits/quirks and setting up a car in a strange way from what I can gather along with having his up and down shift on one paddle which again is a strange thing (albeit I guess it doesn't make too much difference).
He's not exactly lit up WEC races or Le Mans but he's an F1 World Champion and was seriously quick when he wanted to be.
Obviously he's a rent-a-gob now too so he comes across as a strange bloke and you could argue he's just an old bloke ranting but he seemed to be quite odd, a bit of a maverick type when he was younger and winning too - perhaps inheriting it from his dad?
Where does he stack up in retrospect?
He was one a few single championship winners who were a mid pack talent that got lucky with a fast car and a weak field. The Sennas and the Prosts were gone and the Schumachers (Ferrari version) and Hakkinens were not quite there yet.
Still, you don't win an F1 title by being slow. I suspect his personality had as much to do with stalling his career as his talent.
Still, you don't win an F1 title by being slow. I suspect his personality had as much to do with stalling his career as his talent.
CLK-GTR said:
He was one a few single championship winners who were a mid pack talent that got lucky with a fast car and a weak field.
That's a good summary. His 'relative' anonymity since supports the theory.I suspect that part of his commitment to Craig Pollock and the whole BAR thing was driven by his recognition of this at the time and perhaps saw it as a means to guarantee employment for a few years.
Decent driver, quick and competitive but would never put him near the elite.
StevieBee said:
That's a good summary. His 'relative' anonymity since supports the theory.
I suspect that part of his commitment to Craig Pollock and the whole BAR thing was driven by his recognition of this at the time and perhaps saw it as a means to guarantee employment for a few years.
Decent driver, quick and competitive but would never put him near the elite.
Exemplified by how close Schumacher ran him in an uncompetitive Ferrari.I suspect that part of his commitment to Craig Pollock and the whole BAR thing was driven by his recognition of this at the time and perhaps saw it as a means to guarantee employment for a few years.
Decent driver, quick and competitive but would never put him near the elite.
JV's up there with Kimi who's not too dissimilar and both were questionable post-WDC wins.
To say JV's a mid-pack driver who got lucky is unfair because he destroyed the myth of another mid-pack driver HHF being as good as Schumi; age didn't help but Damon also faded into mid-pack obscurity
When he won the Indycar title it was with the 2nd/3rd best team against the dominant Penske who were still building their own cars and everybody else were using customer chassis.
To say JV's a mid-pack driver who got lucky is unfair because he destroyed the myth of another mid-pack driver HHF being as good as Schumi; age didn't help but Damon also faded into mid-pack obscurity
When he won the Indycar title it was with the 2nd/3rd best team against the dominant Penske who were still building their own cars and everybody else were using customer chassis.
Evanivitch said:
He's there with Button on being decent enough driver but benefited hugely from being right car at the right time.
I agree although to be fair that applies to the vast majority of drivers - very few become world champion in a car that's clearly deficient compared to the best on the grid. Last time it happened was almost 30 years ago now (Schumacher in 1995).JNW1 said:
Evanivitch said:
He's there with Button on being decent enough driver but benefited hugely from being right car at the right time.
I agree although to be fair that applies to the vast majority of drivers - very few become world champion in a car that's clearly deficient compared to the best on the grid. Last time it happened was almost 30 years ago now (Schumacher in 1995).I think he's underappreciated. His must have ranked pretty high in terms of number of overtakes when in the midfield, albeit mostly with BAR. Remember a good battle with Alonso in the Renault when in he was in the far less competitive Sauber (or was it BMW). Also, out qualifying Frentzen by 1.8 secs in Australia 97 was pretty special and rare to see such a gap between teammates. The change to the narrower cars and grooved tyres really didn't suit his style, though.
JNW1 said:
I agree although to be fair that applies to the vast majority of drivers - very few become world champion in a car that's clearly deficient compared to the best on the grid. Last time it happened was almost 30 years ago now (Schumacher in 1995).
1995? I thought that was the Benetton that was running illegal traction control etc?MustangGT said:
JNW1 said:
I agree although to be fair that applies to the vast majority of drivers - very few become world champion in a car that's clearly deficient compared to the best on the grid. Last time it happened was almost 30 years ago now (Schumacher in 1995).
1995? I thought that was the Benetton that was running illegal traction control etc?The 1995 Benetton was Renault powered but Williams had got their act together and Newey had designed a really good car.
Williams did their best (again) to throw it away with poor strategy calls and Damon lost his head but Schumacher undoubtedly also made the most of his talent to take the title fairly easily in a car that was second best in the field.
Villeneuve?
10/10 for commitment/bottle - he'd (infamously) be the guy trying to take Eau Rouge flat back when that wasn't straightforward.
10/10 for not-giving-a-s
t-ness. I liked that about him.
6 or 7/10 for talent. You don't become WDC without having something about you but he was good, not great.
10/10 for commitment/bottle - he'd (infamously) be the guy trying to take Eau Rouge flat back when that wasn't straightforward.
10/10 for not-giving-a-s
t-ness. I liked that about him.6 or 7/10 for talent. You don't become WDC without having something about you but he was good, not great.
Muzzer79 said:
Villeneuve?
10/10 for commitment/bottle - he'd (infamously) be the guy trying to take Eau Rouge flat back when that wasn't straightforward.
10/10 for not-giving-a-st-ness. I liked that about him.
6 or 7/10 for talent. You don't become WDC without having something about you but he was good, not great.
That’s fair. Probably the last of the old-school nutcases before the sport went much more professional. 10/10 for commitment/bottle - he'd (infamously) be the guy trying to take Eau Rouge flat back when that wasn't straightforward.
10/10 for not-giving-a-s
t-ness. I liked that about him.6 or 7/10 for talent. You don't become WDC without having something about you but he was good, not great.
I’d probably describe him as the last man who was more of a James Hunt character, who just didn’t give a f
k and didn’t care who he upset. Oh, and obligatory link to the Eau Rouge ‘99 video. No Jacques, it wasn’t ever going to be flat out in those cars. One hell of a shunt.
Well, JV has driven all of F1, Indycar, Le Mans and Nascar so his driving career goes a whole lot broader than just the usual headlines.
JV may not be one of the biggest names in F1 history but his track record shows a lot more success than the vast majority of drivers. If we compiled a list of F1 drivers who never won a race it would be very long indeed, and if we compiled a shorter list of F1 drivers who never won a championship it would still include illustrious names like Stirling Moss.
A quick click on the internet suggests that of the total 775 drivers who have driven in F1 only 34 ever won a championship and only half of those won more than a single year.
JV may not be one of the biggest names in F1 history but his track record shows a lot more success than the vast majority of drivers. If we compiled a list of F1 drivers who never won a race it would be very long indeed, and if we compiled a shorter list of F1 drivers who never won a championship it would still include illustrious names like Stirling Moss.
A quick click on the internet suggests that of the total 775 drivers who have driven in F1 only 34 ever won a championship and only half of those won more than a single year.
Evanivitch said:
JNW1 said:
Evanivitch said:
He's there with Button on being decent enough driver but benefited hugely from being right car at the right time.
I agree although to be fair that applies to the vast majority of drivers - very few become world champion in a car that's clearly deficient compared to the best on the grid. Last time it happened was almost 30 years ago now (Schumacher in 1995).And generally it's rare top drivers have another top driver competing against them in the same team anyway. That combination tends to result in conflict which is why team principals often prefer to have one top driver - who can potentially take the driver's title - supported by a dependable second driver who can score consistent points to help secure the constructor's championship. Schumacher, Alonso, Vettel, Hamilton and Verstappen are all recent(ish) multiple world champions but they won most or all of their titles in the best car whilst having inferior team mates in the sister car - were they all lucky as well?
Muzzer79 said:
That was 1994.
The 1995 Benetton was Renault powered but Williams had got their act together and Newey had designed a really good car.
Williams did their best (again) to throw it away with poor strategy calls and Damon lost his head but Schumacher undoubtedly also made the most of his talent to take the title fairly easily in a car that was second best in the field.
As a Damon Hill fan I mention this every time 1995 is discussed, the Williams may have been a faster car but it was very unreliable with the gearbox in particular causing numerous retirements. I would argue that the more reliable Benetton was actually the better (but not faster) car.The 1995 Benetton was Renault powered but Williams had got their act together and Newey had designed a really good car.
Williams did their best (again) to throw it away with poor strategy calls and Damon lost his head but Schumacher undoubtedly also made the most of his talent to take the title fairly easily in a car that was second best in the field.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff