Suddenly and Surprisingly Strong Seasons (Drivers)

**rjbetty** · 16th July 2015, 18:25

Frentzen/Villeneuve
Yeah with Frentzen, I certainly estimate he was better than Villeneuve from 2001 onwards. Well I'm not sure about 2001 since HHF had some dud races like spinning in France and somehow only finishing 7th at Silverstone behind the Saubers after qualifying 5th (Trulli started 4th) - despite Coulthard Trulli and Ralf all retiring. His races seemed to lack in the Prost too, though his qualifying was immediately a big improvement over Alesi. Villeneuve got podiums and 4th in Monaco, so his races seemed good even though his qualifying was bad (JV still outqualified Panis 12-5 though, strangely). I also remember Jacques saying he drove a perfect race at the Nurburgring, yet for all that it only translated to 9th so no-one noticed. There was also a collision between the BARs at the start at Silverstone, which had Panis furious. He even suspected it might not have been totally accidental!

I think Villeneuve did better than Frentzen in 2000 and was slightly quicker in 1999 imo, though he had nowhere near the points gathering ability of Frentzen, even taking into account his terrible unreliability imo.

Even in 2000 Jacques could still be daft in races. Canada seemed to sum up what he was about. He started 6th, made a great start and was running in the top 3 for a good while early on, right up with MS and Hakkinen, which was exciting! Then later on, when it was wet, he T-Boned Ralf at the hairpin in the true spirit of Maldonado. That's why the hairpin got moved back from the following season IIRC, to give drivers more run off if they crash.

Now you mention it, I remember the great Villeneuve starts from 2001 very well! I remember Autosport or somewhere saying it was because Jacques set his car up with a long 1st gear for races, even though that would compromise his overall performance. He figured since he was never really going to beat the McLarens and Ferraris, the long 1st gear would help him get a great start ahead of all the other best of the rest runners, where he could then spend the rest of the race holding them up. Honda power helped at the time, since they had 800bhp (more than they have now I bet), one of the most powerful engines going.

The definitive example of this for me was always Imola 2001, where Jacques started 9th, drove past the rest at the start then spent the race holding onto 5th, despite huge pressure from his friend Salo (another @sshole to be frank, though I liked him).

Eddie Irvine
With Eddie, yeah Pedro de la Rosa, recently having joined Jaguar, outqualified him 6 times in a row mid season in 2001, at exactly the time Irvine declared he was the 2nd best driver in the world and "quicker than Mika"! He did claim he was having a bad run of things at the time, which was maybe partly true, though he was very quick to point out (more than once over those years) that during their entire time at Jaguar together, de la Rosa never once finished a race ahead of Irvine. Amazingly this is true! Irvine really did have a great knack in later years of getting the result that was possible (scarce as those chances were) when you couldn't trust PDLR to do the same.

Olivier Panis
I so remember Panis qualifying 3rd in that Toyota at Indy 2003. It wowed us back home. It caused such a stir that ITV opened their race coverage with the end of Panis' lap the previous day. There was talk of a BIG result for Panis that day, especially with the rain, but no, Toyota threw the result away with absurd strategy that would make the current Mercedes pitwall look like Ross Brawn, and Panis trailed home 9th out of the points. They then locked out the 2nd row in Japan, with da Matta 3rd this time, only to convert it into a measly 7th and 10th. Still it led to me expecting big things from Toyota in 2004.

**anfield5** · 17th July 2015, 01:06

Pierluigi Martinin in the Minardi in bumble bee Minardi. Was appearing near the front of starting grids and even led the odd race.

**jens** · 17th July 2015, 09:23

Richard, looking from that angle you have a point about putting Villeneuve a fraction ahead of Frentzen, though I’d still put the German ahead of Irvine. JV’s 2000 was good as discussed. Perhaps slightly more convincing than HHF, who showed cracks of inconsistency. As for 1999, HHF was excellent, but JV was as well. However, JV’s problem was like Alonso’s now. The car was a bit rubbish with chronic unreliability, so the driver couldn’t showcase his skills properly.

In retrospect I also wonder, how good was Frentzen in the Sauber early on. He was rated super highly back then, so that even Frank Williams was desperate to sign him.

But now that we have been discussing all these drivers, where do all their other contemporaries like Coulthard, Barrichello, Fisichella, R. Schumacher, Salo, Alesi, Wurz, Diniz fit in. Though I am sure you have got all GP2 gaps worked out already.

By the way, I remember playing GP2 briefly back in 2005 (long time ago!). Katayama was incredibly good there!

**rjbetty** · 17th July 2015, 10:59

Yeah I know I was always taken aback by Katayama in that game. He was around 6th best driver ahead of Hakkinen!

I think with JV in 1999 he did have some offs as well, so while I think he was a bit quicker than Frentzen, I don't think he put together as good a season.

Frentzen at Sauber is very curious. Drivers usually start off slowly as a rookie while they have to understand everything, then as they do they get quicker and quicker each year, but it looks to me like Frentzen started off very well. I can't figure it out. He outqualified his highly-rated team mate Wendlinger 3-0 in his first 3 races! This is also what I couldn't understand. I am a big fan of Wendlinger but it seemed to me he didn't look that good against Frentzen being outqualified like that. I never watched the season so I don't have context. However in races, Wendlinger looked better, coming 4th at that Imola race with Frentzen 7th. HHF also saw off de Cesaris and JJ Lehto easily, only being outqualified once all year and none at all the next year.

As for the others, I love trying to figure out the form, something I'm fascinated by. It seems to me that though there are fluctuations in form, there seems to be a 'general' level the drivers perform at. Team-mate comparisons are helpful, though can't be trusted blindly. I mean I don't think many people really thought the Vettel of 2013 is really about 0.3sec slower than Ricciardo.

Well if I take say 1999, how about this:

1999 drivers

FERRARI
1.M.Schumacher - obviously at the top
2.Irvine - His average against Michael in qualifying was +0.54s However this is muddied by Michael missing races, but that figure looks about right, given that in 1996 it was about 0.9s I think, then +0.82 in 1997 and +0.66 in 1998.

It's definitely guesswork when you start adding in other teams since you can't know for sure the car performance. I mean could two drivers be doing a terrible job in a rocketship and looking good, or could they be great drivers flattering a bucket and looking the same? We can't tell, but in these cases, there tends to be a general feeling amongst the paddock which is usually close to the truth.

Coulthard had a bad 1999, not liking the grooved tyres and getting the no.2 treatment (David spoke of the preferential treatment Mika got after leaving McLaren). As I remember, he qualified +0.374s behind Hakkinen. Now it was regarded that Irvine had done a slightly better job in 1999. There was even talk of McLaren signing him, and Ron Dennis said he felt Irvine was/did better than DC, but not by enough to risk signing him. I feel that in 1999 this was about right and I would put it roughly

1.M.Schumacher
2.Irvine +0.540
3.Coulthard +0.574

This would put Hakkinen 0.2 behind Michael. How do we know they weren't equal? I don't, but I have always felt they weren't, not as much as people said. I think if Hakk and MS had been teammates Mika would have done very well, but also been shown up whenever something wasn't perfect for him. I mean who would have thought Kimi would have been shown up as he has been recently? (I did actually, but even I didn't think the gap would be so big).

If they were both equal, that would make the first 4

1.M.Schumacher
2.Hakkinen +0.000
3.Coulthard +0.374
4.Irvine +0.540

Now was Coulthard really that much quicker than Irvine, in theoretical equal cars, in 1999? I'm not sure, so while it is basically guessing, I feel my version is closer to the truth.

Now for Williams, these days I put Ralf at about +0.4sec off Michael in 1999. I don't know where I get that figure from actually now I think about it. He was just over half a second quicker than Zanardi. I make the top 4 teams drivers as this, taking their qualifying times

1.M.Schumacher
2.Hakkinen +0.2
3.R.Schumacher +0.4
4.Frentzen +0.5
5.Irvine +0.54
6.Coulthard +0.574
7.Zanardi +0.91
8.Hill +1.17

Now I'm doing this, I'm suddenly having a sort of crisis of doubt and can't remember how I came up with these!

I just woke up though so maybe it will come to me

Anyway here's the rest based on qualifying

1.M.Schumacher
2.Hakkinen +0.2
3.R.Schumacher +0.4
3.Barrichello +0.4
3.Villeneuve +0.4 These 3 too close to call
6.Frentzen +0.5
7.Irvine +0.54 Well I know that one for a fact

8.Coulthard +0.57
9.Trulli +0.6
10.Fisichella +0.6
11.Wurz +0.78
12.Alesi +0.80 (curiously I seem to make Alesi out around this same level almost every season... o.o)
13.Zanardi +0.91 (Zanardi did actually outqualify Ralf 5 times, it was in races he totally sucked)
14.Panis +0.93?
(=14.Salo - I'd put him exactly around Panis I think. Compare that to what I've given to Irvine and Diniz and does it seem right?)
15.Herbert +1.04
15.Takagi +1.04
17.de la Rosa +1.1
18.Hill +1.17
19.Diniz +1.2
20.Zonta +1.3
21.Badoer +1.6
22.Gené +2.0

Now looking at that I myself am surprised at Zanardi, but he really wasn't all that bad in qualifying, and what we do know for a fact is that he averaged just over 0.5sec off Ralf over 1999 in qual. So to put him lower I'd have to put Ralf lower too. It was widely regarded that Ralf was "scintillating" in 1999, some suspecting he did better than even Frentzen. Remember that the previous season he had outqualified Damon Hill 10-6 and was only defeated by Fisichella 10-7 before that. He also did compare well with Montoya, so to put him a little ahead of Frentzen for speed, and at least equal with the more experienced Barrichello and Villeneuve seems about right.

I am also surprised at Panis since back then I'd have rated him lower. He did look invisible in 1999, and 1998 in particular. In hindsight I think it was more the car though Olivier wasn't on great form for most of that time. We can know he was +0.322s slower than Trulli (not including France) so if I put him lower, I would have to put Trulli lower. Trulli did peter out a little at the end of 1999 having fallen out with Alain Prost, but thru the season he was a fixture around the top 10 and drove very well I felt.

On the other hand this could all be junk though (it is qualifying only as well).

EDIT: Have you ever seen this? This guy goes way ahead of me. Pretty much what I just tried to do, but done properly.

http://grandprixratings.blogspot.co.uk/

You know the rest of you can speak up too. Don't leave it all to Jens, would love to hear what you think.

**jens** · 17th July 2015, 11:12

Now that you mention this is qualifying, it is a very significant mention. Because there is a difference between qualifying/race/overall performance.

For starters. Even though Ralf's 1999 overall was fantastic, I felt his weakness was qualifying that year. He often barely made it into top 10 and even qualified 16th a few times. He beat Zanardi, but TBH he was not much of a benchmark. Ralf was great in races, but I'd put Barrichello, Villeneuve, Trulli, Frentzen above him in qualifying speed. Race speed is another matter!

Also - Häkkinen v Schumacher. Häkkinen was rated as a great qualifying driver. He may have been a match to Schumi there, but not so much in races. Coulthard v Irvine? DC may well have been faster than Irvine in qualis. It was the races, where DC didn't quite deliver (except Spa!) Remember Italy - Coulthard qualified third, but had lackluster race pace.

Irvine in contrast - often from average grid slots had strong race pace. I think it was only in Spain and Hungary and to a lesser extent in Canada, where he excelled in qualis.

**rjbetty** · 17th July 2015, 11:38

Yeah that is interesting to think. I agree there's not much reason to think the Williams drivers could have been a little slower in qualifying but one made up for it in races. When I come up with these figures it tends to be where I feel their 'natural' speed level was that season and doesn't really account for fluctuations, since we can't really know...

Even taking into account that we can be surprised at how well drivers do/don't do when going up against a new team-mate Zanardi seems pretty high here.

With Trulli I'm guessing cos he did taper off a bit as well I felt it would bring his average down to where it was. Panis was beating him fairly often at the end. Also, it means he is about a tenth down on Frentzen, then he was around equal with HHF in 2000, then ahead in 2001. Taking that momentum of a few years getting up to speed, that's also why I put Trulli where he was.

Irvine was great in Spain 1999. He was on pole until Hakkinen put in one final bitz at the end and nicked it. That was also the first time he really outqualified MS properly, with no issues/reasons, which had Michael very tetchy indeed. Then I think Irvine followed him closely in the race (or maybe that was only when they were both behind Villeneuve's BAR for that long time).

P.S do you remember Alesi being on provisional pole for a long time in that same session? Such an anomaly, like Maldonado's win. I never did hear an explanation for it, except that somehow Jean and the car just nailed it at that moment. He only qualified +0.300s off pole in the end, yet that was only enough for 5th.

**jens** · 17th July 2015, 11:58

I think Panis outqualifying Trulli in the end should not degrade Trulli. We have just recently established that Panis himself was a good qualifier as well, and as always drivers have fluctuations. I think Trulli was a genuine qualifying master already back then, the only thing that was missing, was reputation (reputation comes with years and especially GOOD cars).

Also if you put Ralf S. down, it will bring Zanardi down, which makes sense. I don't feel Zanardi was quicker than Hill or Herbert, even in qualifying.

I don't feel Frentzen was slower than Barrichello, Villeneuve, Coulthard in qualis. HHF qualified quite a lot at the front, even split the two McLarens on fast circuits.

**jens** · 17th July 2015, 12:01

Originally Posted by rjbetty

Frentzen at Sauber is very curious. Drivers usually start off slowly as a rookie while they have to understand everything, then as they do they get quicker and quicker each year, but it looks to me like Frentzen started off very well. I can't figure it out. He outqualified his highly-rated team mate Wendlinger 3-0 in his first 3 races! This is also what I couldn't understand. I am a big fan of Wendlinger but it seemed to me he didn't look that good against Frentzen being outqualified like that. I never watched the season so I don't have context. However in races, Wendlinger looked better, coming 4th at that Imola race with Frentzen 7th. HHF also saw off de Cesaris and JJ Lehto easily, only being outqualified once all year and none at all the next year.

I remember watching 1994 San Marino Grand Prix retrospectively. I think I may have watched this race even multiple times. Due to obvious reasons I guess! But what I wanted to mention is that I am pretty sure Frentzen stalled on the grid, which is why he finished outside the points, while Wendlinger was 4th.

But you are right. HHF was right up to speed. I just checked that Frentzen qualified 5th in his very first F1 weekend! That was Brazil 1994. Talk about taking F1 by storm! Reminds me of Eddie Irvine, who also took F1 by storm with a strong race weekend at Suzuka the year before.

I guess what helped Frentzen (and also Irvine), was that he was already somewhat older, when he made his F1 debut. I think HHF was like 26 on his debut? So he wasn't a 20-year-old green bloke, but already a well-experienced racing driver in general, who was on form and did not need time to adapt.

**jens** · 17th July 2015, 12:07

Originally Posted by rjbetty

It's definitely guesswork when you start adding in other teams since you can't know for sure the car performance. I mean could two drivers be doing a terrible job in a rocketship and looking good, or could they be great drivers flattering a bucket and looking the same? We can't tell, but in these cases, there tends to be a general feeling amongst the paddock which is usually close to the truth.

Yep... This is the big thing. You can say driver A beats driver B in the same team, but how do they perform generally in relation to the car? Are both good or bad?

This is where often gut feeling and common sense have to be used. So that overall context makes sense. But it is often hard to achieve...

For example... yeah... I do feel that Prost drivers in 1999 qualifying are slightly undervalued (both of them!), and neither Williams driver completely capitalized on car potential. Even qualifying results somewhat confirm it. Prosts often qualified in the top10 or even top6, but rarely got points in races. Williams often barely made it into top 10 in qualis, but one of their drivers was usually top 5 in races.

Yeah, it can be explained with car characteristics as well. But overall I believe Williams had tad more potential than Prost as a car, and I have no reason not to believe this wasn't the case in qualifying as well.

The one I wonder about is Villeneuve... Zonta was a non-benchmark, and Salo was also well off JV's pace, but he never had the opportunity to adapt to the car (only 3 race weekends). But Villeneuve was often flying in qualis. In top 10. It looked like he did a masterful job. But how masterful?

**jens** · 17th July 2015, 12:20

But 1999 is one of my favourite seasons of all times.

I always enjoy discussing this season. Because the scenario was so odd and that season challenges the way you rate drivers. M. Schumacher got injured and Häkkinen had a below-par season with plenty of mistakes. And other two WDCs VIlleneuve and Hill... One had a rubbish car, other was not performing at all.

So you had drivers like Irvine, Frentzen, R. Schumacher, Barrichello performing possibly their best ever seasons. But how good were they? 1999 may have been the season in which they were performing closest to the front they have ever done, due to the dropped standards of benchmarks mentioned above. Fascinating thought.