Gilles Villeneuve

[strad]

Nothing today touches the past..not even close..BUT...I say again, If beelsebob or anyone else wants to believe now is the best F1 ever or the 60s or the 50s,,I don't give a shìt. It neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket..believe what you ever floats your boat..just don't try to foist it off on me.

[Stradivarius]

Nothing today touches the past..not even close..BUT...I say again, If beelsebob or anyone else wants to believe now is the best F1 ever or the 60s or the 50s,,I don't give a shìt. It neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket..believe what you ever floats your boat..just don't try to foist it off on me.

I don't see this as a matter of belief, which battle is the best is simply a matter of opinion. However, beelsbob is making his argument based on facts. Hamilton and Rosberg did race side by side a lot in Bahrain, pretty much in the same way as Villeneuve and Arnoux did. On several occasions, Hamilton and Rosberg were side by side from the end of the start-finish straight until the exit of turn 4. When you say that we don't ever see this kind of battle or driving, I think it is quite legitimate to point out that we actually do see battles that in many aspects is of the same kind. And then you can point out which essential aspects that are different instead of shrugging off any objections as strange beliefs.

There is, in my opinion, a few aspects which are different. The fact that Rosberg and Hamilton were battling for the race win, and that they also are first and second in the championship and that this could actually be seen as a battle (one of many, hopefully) for the title. On the other hand, I think it is worth mentioning that Rosberg and Hamilton are team mates and that they had clear instructions not to take any risks. I am not only refering to the radio message, but it should be pretty obvious in advance that team mates are careful with each other. This is perhaps the most significant difference, as Villeneuve indeed was known to be a high risk taker and he did not race under team orders.

I suspect that if Rosberg hadn't been Hamilton's team mate in that race, there might have been trouble. Hamilton pushed Rosberg off the track in turn 4 several times, and even if another driver might have yielded once, I doubt that Hamilton would have gotten away with that kind of driving the second time and the third. The stewards might also have been more eager to look into what happened, if it wasn't a battle between two team mates. So the two of them being team mates definitely makes the situation a bit different. But the racing itself is very similar, in my opinion.

[George-Jung]

Meanwhile, at Bahrain, we saw a succession of 10 laps in which Hamilton and Rosberg were side by side in some corners. On the most competitive lap we saw them side by side in 42% of corners.

Not true, not for 10laps.. the last couple of laps Rosberg backed off because, if I recall it correctly, his tires dropped off.
It was a nice battle though!

[Sombrero]

http://legaltranslationsystems.com/wordpress/?p=743


Gilles Villeneuve, Giro d'Italia 1979, Lancia Beta Montecarlo Turbo Gr.5
http://www.doubledeclutch.com/?tag=gilles-villeneuve

more pictures here :
http://s183.photobucket.com/user/Starco ... 3748570892


We're a happy family...

[ringo]

I don't think he was great great. To say he took more chances where others didn't just says that he valued his life less.
You put a man that doesn't value his own life in a car to drive around the nurburgring and you will be surprised how much faster he is than someone has has a reason to live.
And that's simply an unfair advantage that he would have other drivers since in theory that would widen his performance envelope. Even with the" risk my life card" to play he still lost to teammates.
I would say he was very good and flashy to watch, but i don't get the hype either. I've seen the highlights of course, but this doesn't speak to his portfolio as the results do.
There a more drivers that came after him that have accomplished more, even in the same career span.

[Sombrero]

Basically no drivers were ever great. Even Vettel is just a four time F-1 World Champion that means the best driver out of 22 and pretending that these 22 are the best of the world is a complete joke, especially these days.

In the 70's there were very successfull drivers in F-1 like Stewart-Fittipaldi or Lauda. Good but boring.
I prefer to remember those who were racing flat out like Peterson-Depailler or Villeneuve...

[timbo]

I don't think he was great great. To say he took more chances where others didn't just says that he valued his life less.
You put a man that doesn't value his own life in a car to drive around the nurburgring and you will be surprised how much faster he is than someone has has a reason to live.
And that's simply an unfair advantage that he would have other drivers since in theory that would widen his performance envelope.

Yeah, "in theory".
In practice, you can only risk so much and risk is not easily converted in results. There is absolute maximum of what a car can do in a corner. Brake two meters later and you loose time, brake ten meters later and you're out of the corner. If you always brake as late as possible to make a corner you would loose time because there would always be overshoots due to grip changes/wind/tire condition.
A win in Jarama would be impossible if willingness to take risks was the only source of his speed.

Even with the" risk my life card" to play he still lost to teammates.
I would say he was very good and flashy to watch, but i don't get the hype either. I've seen the highlights of course, but this doesn't speak to his portfolio as the results do.
There a more drivers that came after him that have accomplished more, even in the same career span.

How can you compare? Noone ever competes under same circumstances. And as I said earlier in this thread, if one drops '77 and '82 he lost squarely only to Reutemann in '78. '79 was a close match, a single retirement could change things on one side or the other.

And there is a view of his peers. At his time he was considered fastest in F1.

[NathanOlder]

I know what your saying timbo, but surely if he was as good as people say, some say he was the very best, then he would have been blowing his team mate away and possibly a double world champion. Certainly a 1 time world champion. People say the ferrari was a dog, so was the ferrari of late and alonso's ferrari career is better than gilles. Even in a time of total red bull domination.

[SGeorge]

I think that all "top" drivers were able to get the best from the car, whichever era they drove in - Gilles got the best out the car, but did it with style and was always flat out, becoming very endearing to the fans. Maybe he wasnt the best over a season, but he was always fast and always good to watch and for that he is fondly remembered.

If it werent for his crash in '82 he would likely have been champion with more race wins......... fact is he was cut down in his prime, and largely is remembered for "what could have been" as much as his achievements, which in fairness are not overly amazing on paper. He was better than his record suggested, and the fact so many people thought so is testament to that.

[timbo]

I know what your saying timbo, but surely if he was as good as people say, some say he was the very best, then he would have been blowing his team mate away and possibly a double world champion. Certainly a 1 time world champion. People say the ferrari was a dog, so was the ferrari of late and alonso's ferrari career is better than gilles. Even in a time of total red bull domination.

Ferrari of late was certainly not a dog. Even if it couldn't challenge RedBulls it was always among top teams pace-wise and had reliability. Not what could be said about 312T5 and 126CK.
The best chance of Gilles surely came in 1979, but it was only his second full season. Not every "great great" comes out dominating right from the start (Clark and Steward for example).
One cannot gauge true picture from stats alone.

[NathanOlder]

Your quite right. But on that basis surely one cannot put him amongst Senna Prost Fangio & Schumacher?

[strad]

You are all welcome to believe what you will. I have been watching and following F1 for over 50 years..imo ..he was one of the absolute best.
I would ask why it is so important to try and tear him down? Why the need ?
My psychology prof would have probably read something in that.

[NathanOlder]

I said in my first post, im not trying to make him look bad, I just wanted to see what people had to say on why he was so great, and mostly it would seem his 2nd place in Dijon was the reason. Nothing else really stands out , yes he was quick, yes he went for a move when others wouldn't. To be fair, Jean Alesi was like that.

I was just asking about if there was anything else that really put his name amongst the Elite that was all.

[timbo]

I said in my first post, im not trying to make him look bad, I just wanted to see what people had to say on why he was so great, and mostly it would seem his 2nd place in Dijon was the reason. Nothing else really stands out , yes he was quick, yes he went for a move when others wouldn't. To be fair, Jean Alesi was like that.

I was just asking about if there was anything else that really put his name amongst the Elite that was all.

Jarama and Monaco in 1981.

[Sombrero]

or Giro d'Italia 1979

It is hard to imagine that Fernando Alonso or Lewis Hamilton will be racing on Italy’s roads in late October but some 35 years ago that is what happened. Gilles Villeneuve, Ferrari’s Grand Prix star and runner up to Jody Scheckter in the 1979 F1 World Championship took part in the Giro d’Italia that autumn.

more : http://www.doubledeclutch.com/?tag=gilles-villeneuve