PDA

View Full Version : Damon Hill in review



Mark
7th February 2007, 10:09
As we were talking about Damon Hill on the main forum I thought I'd open up this thread for discussion.

Damon Hill won the world championship in 1996 with Williams. Many compare him to the greats of the era, such as Schumacher and Senna and find him lacking and while he may not have had the raw talent of those two, you don't win the world championship by accident.

Rudy Tamasz
7th February 2007, 10:18
Interesting topic, but we've had a discussion on that already and pretty much everybody has expressed his/her opinion.

I'm a fan of his and think his skill was hard earned rather than natural. But in the end of the day he was right up there with other greats. 22 GP wins and the title speak for themselves.

What is natural about him is his class, which he has in spades and which is something people like MS have never even come close to.

Erki
7th February 2007, 11:04
Even thought I started following motorsports two years since Damon retired, I like Hill, I like his dad as well. They both started racing later than usual and had to work hard to get to the top. I tend to like the late bloomers of motorsports, regardless of the discipline.

ArrowsFA1
7th February 2007, 11:24
I think we saw the very best of Damon Hill at the 1994 Japanese GP.

In the same way his father did after the death of Jim Clark, Damon had rallied the Williams team after Imola and they were still in contention for both titles.

Suzuka was a wet/dry race, and the result was eventually decided on aggregate. As we know Schumacher was supreme in these kind of conditions, and yet he was beaten by Hill. Damon not only had to keep ahead of his rival, but also had to manage the aggregate gap. A superb drive.

He did this knowing that had he been beaten the title race would have almost certainly been over. As it was, Hill & Schumacher went to Adelaide with just a point between them, and we know what happened there.

If anyone has doubts about Hill's abilities as a racing driver they need look no further than Suzuka 1994.

fly_ac
7th February 2007, 17:05
If anyone has doubts about Hill's abilities as a racing driver they need look no further than Suzuka 1994.

I, for one believe that Hill had/has the ability to drive a F1 car. Whether his abilities of driving well, won him the WDC, I do not believe. He merely won the WDC because he had the way better car at the time and were capable of driving that car. The same goes for Villeneuve. After they both left Williams they couldn't step up to showing if they ever had the true ability of being classified as top F1 drivers. Well from my point of view in any case.

futuretiger9
7th February 2007, 23:24
Whilst Damon may have attracted some criticism for his alleged lack of racing instincts, there is no doubt that he was good at driving F1 cars fast. He was obviously a good test and development driver, as evidenced by his years in that capacity at Williams.

Ironically, I thought that in many ways his best season was 1995. Even though he made some mistakes, usually under pressure from Schumi, he was very quick and determined that year, and didn't try to hide.

I think that Damon's most admirable qualities were his sense of fair play, and the fact that he was a "good bloke". He may actually become more appreciated and respected as the years go by.

ArrowsFA1
7th February 2007, 23:29
He merely won the WDC because he had the way better car at the time and were capable of driving that car.
Damon might even agree with you. He said recently:

"That was the best car! And I was very grateful for it! But yes, people said that you only win because you're in the best car. Well, of course. You have got to get your hands on the best car. But you can also not achieve with the best car. And I don't think I can be accused of that."
But it's not "merely" about the best car. How had Hill got into the postion of being in the best car in 1996? Williams hadn't just plucked him out of the air and given him the car. He'd already had to prove his ability within the team since 1992 and there are so many other factors involved, but the bottom line is he was there and he did make the most of the opportunity.

Unfortunately, Williams thought he hadn't made the most of what they had given him during the 1995 season, and it was then that he was dumped in favour of Frentzen. I like to think that Damon proved that decision was wrong.

EuroTroll
13th February 2007, 10:34
As some of you know, I'm not his greatest fan, but I do think that anyone who's won the Drivers' Championship is worthy of great respect.

In terms of ability, I think Hill was on the same level as Berger, Patrese, J. Villeneuve and Coulthard (when they were all at their best). That two of these won the Championship and three didn't is just a matter of varying circumstances.

wedge
14th February 2007, 02:17
Brundle has mentioned that his rivalry with Senna during their F3 days gave him extra strength and spurred him to a higher level, and I think the same thing happened with Hill/Schumi.

The intense competition gave Hill that burning desire, extra confidence, a killer instinct to become WDC.

D-Type
14th February 2007, 22:59
I, for one believe that Hill had/has the ability to drive a F1 car. Whether his abilities of driving well, won him the WDC, I do not believe. He merely won the WDC because he had the way better car at the time and were capable of driving that car. The same goes for Villeneuve. After they both left Williams they couldn't step up to showing if they ever had the true ability of being classified as top F1 drivers. Well from my point of view in any case.I can't really accept this argument. If you think about it, how many championships were won by a man driving the best car? I would say at least 70% of them. How does a driver get chosen to drive the best car? On ability. How does a driver win with the best car? By having the ability to make use of it.

fly_ac
15th February 2007, 14:47
On ability. How does a driver win with the best car? By having the ability to make use of it.

errr......That is the same as what I said. :confused:



.......because he had the way better car at the time and were capable of driving that car.
;)

raphael123
15th February 2007, 15:28
fly_ac, in reply to your comments made in the other topic, I must be honest your reply saying you've been an F1 fan since 91 surprises me. I'll take your word for it :) But it's quite surprising you don't recall Belgium 98! Though not many cars finished that race, the only retirement which benefited Hill was Schumacher (who made a driver error), so that isn't really relevant to his win. And the fact you don't believe Hill to be in a position to make a comment on Alonso's move to McLaren as a good way to prove himself, when I think Hill managed to do exactly that, suggested you weren't aware of Hill's achievements during the 97-98 seasons. Both teams made radical performance gains during the course of the seasons, and Hill drove argueably one of the greatest race performances in recent history in Hungary 97, only a mechanical failure letting him down on the final lap, and gave a team who'd never won a GP a victory! And I notice you say here that he only won the title because he had the best car. And hasn't shown ability of being a top class driver since then, further suggests you weren't aware of his final years in the sport, unless you were watching it from another perspective.

fly_ac
16th February 2007, 12:11
fly_ac, in reply to your comments made in the other topic, I must be honest your reply saying you've been an F1 fan since 91 surprises me. I'll take your word for it :)
It is a surprise to me as well, especially that it is such a long time. :)


But it's quite surprising you don't recall Belgium 98!
What gave you that idea, would that be, because I asked questions to get a reaction?
Would it be the following comments/questions from myself?


1) Did he won any race after Williams?
2) So what were Hill's excuse when he left Williams?
3) Did Hill win any WDC after Williams, my good man?
4) I weren't drawing any similarity between anyone. The argument were that Hill isn't in the best of possitions to judge, if it is a good move for Alonso to have gone to McLaren or not. I think the best judge of that is Time.
5) Ohhh 1 more question, how many cars completed that race.
I think basic answers to this could have been.
1) Yes, in 1998 at Spa, with Jordan.
2) He was told that his contract would not be renewed, and all the top teams were sorted at the time, so he had to settle for Arrows.
3) No, given the teams he was in.
4) Please take note, I didn't say that Hill were in no position to judge, I said best of positions and that the best judge of that is time.
5) 8 cars to be precise



Though not many cars finished that race, the only retirement which benefited Hill was Schumacher (who made a driver error), so that isn't really relevant to his win.

Read no 5) above. And there were 14 retirements that benefited Hill.


And the fact you don't believe Hill to be in a position to make a comment on Alonso's move to McLaren as a good way to prove himself, when I think Hill managed to do exactly that, suggested you weren't aware of Hill's achievements during the 97-98 seasons.

Read no 4) above. And I were very much aware of Hill in 97,98 and even 99


Both teams made radical performance gains during the course of the seasons, and Hill drove argueably one of the greatest race performances in recent history in Hungary 97, only a mechanical failure letting him down on the final lap, and gave a team who'd never won a GP a victory!

Well yes that is arguable, and mechanical failure is and will always be part of the sport.


And I notice you say here that he only won the title because he had the best car. And hasn't shown ability of being a top class driver since then, further suggests you weren't aware of his final years in the sport, unless you were watching it from another perspective.

Obviously I am/were looking at it/Hill/F1 from a different perspective, how boring would it be if everyone were to agree about everything all the time. :D

As I said before, Hill is/were capable of driving a F1 car.
If Williams didn't want him and Mclaren didn't want to give him a proper contract it tells me they had their doubts as to how good he really were. :erm:

Narr
17th February 2007, 15:44
Read no 5) above. And there were 14 retirements that benefited Hill.


If you are driving in 1st and 2nd position 14 retirements behind you don't hand you the lead. Only Michael's retirement helped Damon.

raphael123
19th February 2007, 10:52
fly_ac



What gave you that idea, would that be, because I asked questions to get a reaction?
Would it be the following comments/questions from myself?

It was because you asked whether he won a race after, and a title etc basically. I didn't realise you were trying to get a reaction. I'm no mind-reader - I admit it!!

Williams regretted him leaving. The decision to get Frentzen was made in 95, which in fairness Hill didn't do a great job. I'm not sure how accurate this was, but it's reported that in 96 Ferrari and Benettons (the then champions) were keen to sign him after he had been dropped by Williams. This is according to wikipedia, but from my memory I thought he signed with Arrows because there were no other top seats available. Can anyone who was watching F1 then recall differently?

And McLaren did offer him a contract, I suppose it depends on your defination of a 'proper' contract. I don't think the fact they didn't offer him a fixed salary due to not rating him highly enough, it was Dennis's committment to give DC and Mika (in particular Mika) a chance to drive a car that would be a title winning car, after being at the team for a while now rather than not rating Hill.

And then as Narr said, Hill benefitted from one retirement, which was driver error/accident rather than mechanical :)

Mark
19th February 2007, 10:54
Well Hill also had an offer on the table from Jordan for the 1997 season. And remember Jordan was a pretty good team at the time.

He took the Arrows offer instead, he said because he felt like he was being "shoehorned" into a deal with Jordan :s

fly_ac
19th February 2007, 11:53
It was because you asked whether he won a race after, and a title etc basically. I didn't realise you were trying to get a reaction. I'm no mind-reader - I admit it!!

Williams regretted him leaving. The decision to get Frentzen was made in 95, which in fairness Hill didn't do a great job. I'm not sure how accurate this was, but it's reported that in 96 Ferrari and Benettons (the then champions) were keen to sign him after he had been dropped by Williams. This is according to wikipedia, but from my memory I thought he signed with Arrows because there were no other top seats available. Can anyone who was watching F1 then recall differently?

And McLaren did offer him a contract, I suppose it depends on your defination of a 'proper' contract. I don't think the fact they didn't offer him a fixed salary due to not rating him highly enough, it was Dennis's committment to give DC and Mika (in particular Mika) a chance to drive a car that would be a title winning car, after being at the team for a while now rather than not rating Hill.

And then as Narr said, Hill benefitted from one retirement, which was driver error/accident rather than mechanical :)

If I maybe used the wrong words/sentences to try and get a understanding as to what the big fuss surounding Hill as a WDC is, then I appologise.

The big thing for me were always the fact that the British media made Hill into some sort of a F1 god when he won the WDC. I could and still can't see him as being that great then and today.

Yes, I believe for someone to be a WDC that person had to do something very special, and Hill did he's share to do that, however I don't think I was that special. Well at least not to me. :erm:

The fact that almost every time I read how great a race Hill had at Spa 98, just strengthens my believe, as to how good he was, because I hardly ever read of how good he drove in 96 to become WDC. Sometimes, but very seldom.

raphael123
19th February 2007, 12:10
If I maybe used the wrong words/sentences to try and get a understanding as to what the big fuss surounding Hill as a WDC is, then I appologise.

The big thing for me were always the fact that the British media made Hill into some sort of a F1 god when he won the WDC. I could and still can't see him as being that great then and today.

Yes, I believe for someone to be a WDC that person had to do something very special, and Hill did he's share to do that, however I don't think I was that special. Well at least not to me. :erm:

The fact that almost every time I read how great a race Hill had at Spa 98, just strengthens my believe, as to how good he was, because I hardly ever read of how good he drove in 96 to become WDC. Sometimes, but very seldom.


Apology accepted :)

I don't regard Hill as a great. Without a doubt he wasn't as talented as the likes of Schumacher, Alonso, Senna, Prost etc. I don't think anyone is claiming that. In actual fact, I don't think anyone was really discussing how talented the guy was. I think he was a very very good driver. I think he's actually under-rated by F1 fans, who simply think he got into F1 through his surname, and then got his 20 odd wins by driving the best car at the time. I think when you look at his achievements, especially from his debut season to '96, to achieve over 20 wins in just 4 seasons, and his first 4 seasons as well, was mighty impressive, especially when during that time he had to compete against Senna, Prost and Schumacher, though admittedly only Prost and Senna for a season and a bit. When you include coping with the death of Senna and taking the role of team-leader in the team considered the No1 team in F1 at the time, in only his 2nd full season, is mighty impressive. To take the title down to the wire, and only to lose through his competitor cheating his way to the title (though he helped win the constructors lets not forget!) was more than admirable! Add on top the way he conducted himself, even after his 'incident' in the final race, he was a true sportsman, something his competitor couldn't say. And as has been said, Japan 94 was one of his greatest races ever.

Regarding 96, I agree with you in a way. I think Hill drove very well, especially the first half of that season. He simply maximised the situation he found himself in. He qualified on the front row for every single race that year, no one has ever managed that. And out of the 12 races he completed 10 of those were 1st (8) and 2nd (2). I think that's pretty good, Brazil was probably his greatest race that season, though Suzuka was a very sweet moment for him. I think though he did a very good job in 96, he did have the best car, and his team-mate was a rookie, and his biggest rival had a poor car, so it was his perfect opportunity. Though I think he deserved a championship, and 96 was a just reward for 94 in particular.

Mark, I heard about that too. He should have gone there. From what I understood at the time is it was a 2yr deal? And he wanted the McLaren drive in 98, therefore he accepted the Arrows deal, rather than going to Jordon. Though saying that, if he knew what kind of contract was to be offered by McLaren, I'm guessing he would have gone straight to Jordon, because as you rightly say I think Jordon had a pretty neat package in 97.

ShiftingGears
20th February 2007, 10:21
A bit off topic from the current discussion, but how do you rate Damons talent (compared to his competition) to Grahams talent (compared to his competition)?

It's strange how history repeats itself how Damon was in the same position after Senna's death as Graham was after Clark's death. They were never the most naturally talented drivers (despite Graham managing to win 2 WDCs, first driving a car at age 24!!) but worked hard with what they had.

raphael123
21st February 2007, 10:37
I wish I could comment in detail, but I don't feel I'm in a position to talk much at Graham when I wasn't watching F1 at that time.

But I have heard the comparison - in that Clark was the naturally more gifted driver compared to Graham, just like Schumacher and Hill. Hill should have won 2 titles too, shame really.

Any fans of F1 back in Grahams day care to comment? I know I'd find it interesting :)

Hawkmoon
22nd February 2007, 03:35
I was never a Hill fan after deciding to back Schumi in the battles of '94 and '95. Schumi ended up a Ferrari legend so that worked out quite well for me. :D

Hill did, however, earn a grudging respect after some of his drives in the in the Arrows and Jordan. He then proceeded to lose it all during '99. I know he had lost the passion for F1 at some point during that season but parking a perfectly healthy car was not something I ever thought a world champion would ever do.

I don't think I will ever rate Hill particularly highly in the pantheon of World Champions but he is in that pantheon, which is something that most other drivers will never achieve.

Rippers
1st March 2007, 18:44
Hill was quite simply in the right place at the right time to win his World Championships. Though as many have said, you still have to win once you have the best equipment something I think Hill done without trouble.

A good argument is how drivers around at the time who could of taken his seat ability wise in 1993 would have performed had they been given the Williams. The likes of Martin Brundle and Jean Alesi who have 1 win between them, would of certianly won races and I think both of them would of had at least a serious title fight and at most Double World Championships under there belt. Something Damon himself showed he had the ability to do. (History has the final say, but there would of been no complaints had Hill been given the 94 title) Its all hypothetical I know but in trying to justify a driver, comparing them to what other drivers might of done is one of the only ways of doing it for an arguments sake.

My final word on the matter is if you stuck Michael Andretti in that Williams between 1994-1997 it would of been very fortunate if he colleceted a few wins let alone a few championships.

P.S To put Coulthard in the same bracket as Damon Hill? DC had his chance in 1995 with a taster year in 1994

futuretiger9
1st March 2007, 23:34
Hill was quite simply in the right place at the right time to win his World Championships. Though as many have said, you still have to win once you have the best equipment something I think Hill done without trouble.

A good argument is how drivers around at the time who could of taken his seat ability wise in 1993 would have performed had they been given the Williams. The likes of Martin Brundle and Jean Alesi who have 1 win between them, would of certianly won races and I think both of them would of had at least a serious title fight and at most Double World Championships under there belt. Something Damon himself showed he had the ability to do. (History has the final say, but there would of been no complaints had Hill been given the 94 title) Its all hypothetical I know but in trying to justify a driver, comparing them to what other drivers might of done is one of the only ways of doing it for an arguments sake.

My final word on the matter is if you stuck Michael Andretti in that Williams between 1994-1997 it would of been very fortunate if he colleceted a few wins let alone a few championships.

P.S To put Coulthard in the same bracket as Damon Hill? DC had his chance in 1995 with a taster year in 1994



True, Damon was in the right place at the right time. However, you have to say that he took the opportunity with both hands, and you'd be hard pressed to find someone who'd have done a better job that Damon did between 1994-1996, even allowing for some of the mistakes made in '95.

What people also tend to forget is the sheer effort and persistence that Hill displayed in securing the Williams test drive in the first place. His determination and hunger must have impressed Frank and Patrick.

Looking back now, that drive for Arrows in Hungary '97 was nothing short of miraculous, even allowing for tyre advantages etc. To lose the race as he did was cruel, and it would have been an enormous feather in Damon's cap to have scored Arrows' only victory. He also scored Jordan's first win.

Rippers
2nd March 2007, 00:46
True, Damon was in the right place at the right time. However, you have to say that he took the opportunity with both hands, and you'd be hard pressed to find someone who'd have done a better job that Damon did between 1994-1996, even allowing for some of the mistakes made in '95.

What people also tend to forget is the sheer effort and persistence that Hill displayed in securing the Williams test drive in the first place. His determination and hunger must have impressed Frank and Patrick.

Looking back now, that drive for Arrows in Hungary '97 was nothing short of miraculous, even allowing for tyre advantages etc. To lose the race as he did was cruel, and it would have been an enormous feather in Damon's cap to have scored Arrows' only victory. He also scored Jordan's first win.

Exactly i still remember crying as a 9 year old when he lost that race at the Hungaroring

futuretiger9
3rd March 2007, 00:40
Exactly i still remember crying as a 9 year old when he lost that race at the Hungaroring


I cried as a 27 year old!!

Brown, Jon Brow
3rd March 2007, 15:04
Damon was very under-rated. I think that drive in the Arrows at Hungary proves that he had stacks of ability.

futuretiger9
3rd March 2007, 15:11
Damon was very under-rated. I think that drive in the Arrows at Hungary proves that he had stacks of ability.


Yes, that drive in particular was a real eye-opener, and silenced many of his vocal critics.

EuroTroll
11th March 2007, 13:21
Did it really? I thought most people just regarded it as a tyre-related fluke, given that Arrows were the only team on Bridgestones in 1997.

tinchote
14th March 2007, 01:08
Did it really? I thought most people just regarded it as a tyre-related fluke, given that Arrows were the only team on Bridgestones in 1997.


Are you sure? It doesn't appear like that in Forix.

ArrowsFA1
14th March 2007, 09:21
Did it really? I thought most people just regarded it as a tyre-related fluke, given that Arrows were the only team on Bridgestones in 1997.
I don't think anyone could credit the Hungarian GP as being entirely down to the tyres. The circuit was one Damon liked - he won his first GP there in '93 - and the Arrows team had made a lot of progress since their abysmal start to the year in Australia. Much of the credit for that progress must go to Damon, and his ability as a test & development driver. Hungary merely confirmed the ability Damon had shown at Suzuka in 1994, which I think was his finest drive.

It was a shame he and Ron Dennis couldn't agree a deal for 1998. A McLaren/Hill/Newey combination would have done well.

fly_ac
14th March 2007, 12:18
Did it really? I thought most people just regarded it as a tyre-related fluke, given that Arrows were the only team on Bridgestones in 1997.

Actually Prost, Arrows, Minardi and Steward were on Bridgestone.

EuroTroll
14th March 2007, 15:14
Actually Prost, Arrows, Minardi and Steward were on Bridgestone.

Indeed, you're right.

I should have just written "I thought most people just regarded it as a tyre-related fluke" and stopped there. :) :p :


I don't think anyone could credit the Hungarian GP as being entirely down to the tyres. The circuit was one Damon liked - he won his first GP there in '93 - and the Arrows team had made a lot of progress since their abysmal start to the year in Australia. Much of the credit for that progress must go to Damon, and his ability as a test & development driver. Hungary merely confirmed the ability Damon had shown at Suzuka in 1994, which I think was his finest drive.

No, not entirely down to tyres. But mostly, I think.

Big Ben
16th March 2007, 14:33
I, for one believe that Hill had/has the ability to drive a F1 car. Whether his abilities of driving well, won him the WDC, I do not believe. He merely won the WDC because he had the way better car at the time and were capable of driving that car. The same goes for Villeneuve. After they both left Williams they couldn't step up to showing if they ever had the true ability of being classified as top F1 drivers. Well from my point of view in any case.

Are you one of those who think that a great driver can win a WDC in any car or what? there were people saying that MS was capable of winning in a Minardi and the 2005 season just gave us a proof of how important a car is. It can take a driver from 0 points per season to winning the WDC, if he is a good driver of course. If not, you can have the best car and do very little... like Fisichela for example. The fact that Hill won the WDC once is a mistake. He should have won it at least twice but...

BDunnell
21st March 2007, 14:31
Damon might even agree with you. He said recently:
But it's not "merely" about the best car. How had Hill got into the postion of being in the best car in 1996? Williams hadn't just plucked him out of the air and given him the car. He'd already had to prove his ability within the team since 1992 and there are so many other factors involved, but the bottom line is he was there and he did make the most of the opportunity.

Unfortunately, Williams thought he hadn't made the most of what they had given him during the 1995 season, and it was then that he was dumped in favour of Frentzen. I like to think that Damon proved that decision was wrong.

Absolutely. :up: I am sure that he would have been in contention, at the very least, for the 1997 world championship.

As for his Spa win for Jordan, of course it was lucky to an extent because Schumacher was way ahead. But, as the old adage says, in order to finish first, first you have to finish — and it's not as if there were loads of retirements ahead of him that day, rather just the one. It would have been a superb, genuinely competitive drive by Hill if he'd finished second rather than first.

raphael123
29th March 2007, 09:59
Absolutely. :up: I am sure that he would have been in contention, at the very least, for the 1997 world championship.

As for his Spa win for Jordan, of course it was lucky to an extent because Schumacher was way ahead. But, as the old adage says, in order to finish first, first you have to finish — and it's not as if there were loads of retirements ahead of him that day, rather just the one. It would have been a superb, genuinely competitive drive by Hill if he'd finished second rather than first.

How did you work that out? I don't think that the fact Schumacher crashed out that race resulting in Hill being handed the lead takes anything away from being a superb, genuinely competitive drive by Hill does it? A silly thing to say me thinks

raphael123
29th March 2007, 10:03
Indeed, you're right.



No, not entirely down to tyres. But mostly, I think.

Why was Hill the only competitive Bridgestone guy out there then?

Prost, who earlier in the season were scoring podiums could only manage 6 & 7 and even then were over 1min behind Hill until his problem. Plus Hill's team-mate, who though had been thoroughly beaten by Hill all season, while Hill qualified the car 3rd (was it?), his team-mate languished down in 19th.

Can you explain why you think it was mostly down to tyres please?

EuroTroll
29th March 2007, 14:31
Why was Hill the only competitive Bridgestone guy out there then?

Prost, who earlier in the season were scoring podiums could only manage 6 & 7 and even then were over 1min behind Hill until his problem. Plus Hill's team-mate, who though had been thoroughly beaten by Hill all season, while Hill qualified the car 3rd (was it?), his team-mate languished down in 19th.

Can you explain why you think it was mostly down to tyres please?

Because, while Hill was certainly the best driver on Bridgestones in 1997, it was the relative performance difference between Goodyears and Bridgestones - specific to Hungaroring in 1997 - that enabled Hill to lead that race and eventually get 2nd. Had the tyres performed differently in relation to each other, Hill might have finished 7th, for example, and other Bridgestone runners also further down the field.

In which case no Hill fan would remember that race today and offer it as proof of Hill's extraordinary ability...

ArrowsFA1
29th March 2007, 16:54
Had the tyres performed differently in relation to each other, Hill might have finished 7th, for example, and other Bridgestone runners also further down the field.
That doesn't explain how Hill's team-mate was 2.4s and 16 places behind Hill on the grid with the same car and the same tyres.

EuroTroll
29th March 2007, 17:08
That doesn't explain how Hill's team-mate was 2.4s and 16 places behind Hill on the grid with the same car and the same tyres.

No? Dammit!

How about this, then: Damon Hill was a much better driver than Pedro Diniz.

There, I said it. It was painful, but I did it. Are you enjoying your victory?

:D ;)

ArrowsFA1
29th March 2007, 20:35
:D

sezix
31st March 2007, 23:55
I don't think he was quite as good as Senna or Schui but still Hill was a great driver.

Did very well at Williams. Did great to pick up Williams in 1994 after Senna died and pull the team forward into a winning team again. Developed the FW16 into a great car on his own basically after Senna was killed from then on.

1995 was very impressive should have won many races but lost them in the pit stops etc.

1996 would have been very close if Michael was still at Benetton. But Hill still drove very well all be it with not the most competition ever but he deserved a title to his credit.

1997 some stella performances in a crap car Hungary 1997 an example.

1999 don't know what happens but its shame he had that final year as it all ended well in 1998 with that fantastic drive at Spa where he out paced MS in the early stages to half distance.

ArrowsFA1
24th April 2007, 13:20
The Williams line-up in 1993 should have been Prost & Hakkinen according to this article (http://www.atlasf1.com/97/bra/graham.html).

So Williams wanted Hakkinen. When he was no longer an option they approached Patrese who had already signed for Benetton thinking there was no longer space for him as Mansell & Prost were due to be the Williams '93 line-up. Mansell leaves in a huff for Indycars vacating a WDC-winning seat. Williams negotiations with Hakkinen stumble because the team are late registering their 1993 entry. Patrese honours his Benetton contract. Hill gets the drive.

How fate and circumstance change history :crazy:

Ranger
24th April 2007, 15:30
The Williams line-up in 1993 should have been Prost & Hakkinen according to this article (http://www.atlasf1.com/97/bra/graham.html).

So Williams wanted Hakkinen. When he was no longer an option they approached Patrese who had already signed for Benetton thinking there was no longer space for him as Mansell & Prost were due to be the Williams '93 line-up. Mansell leaves in a huff for Indycars vacating a WDC-winning seat. Williams negotiations with Hakkinen stumble because the team are late registering their 1993 entry. Patrese honours his Benetton contract. Hill gets the drive.

How fate and circumstance change history :crazy:

It seems Williams as a team were a bit messy with drivers in the early 90's. Williams, along with Ferrari and another team at one point, announced that they had signed Jean Alesi.

An even bigger questionmark could be put over him, as he is the ultimate case of someone who never quite got the equipment under him, whereas Patrese and Hakkinen did.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

raphael123
25th April 2007, 13:41
Because, while Hill was certainly the best driver on Bridgestones in 1997, it was the relative performance difference between Goodyears and Bridgestones - specific to Hungaroring in 1997 - that enabled Hill to lead that race and eventually get 2nd. Had the tyres performed differently in relation to each other, Hill might have finished 7th, for example, and other Bridgestone runners also further down the field.

In which case no Hill fan would remember that race today and offer it as proof of Hill's extraordinary ability...

As I pointed out though, the next highest Bridgestone runner that race was in 6th. So Goodyear finished 1st, 3nd,4th, 5th, while Bridgestone had 2nd and 6th. And as I pointed out, the guy who was 6th was driving a car which was fighting for victories in the earlier part of that season, and lead a large part of the Austrian race a couple of races later, so it wasn't as if that car wasn't as competitive as the Arrows! So though Bridgestone may have had a good tyre for that race, it doesn't go all the way to explaining Hill's pace at that race!

So it wasn't just the 2.5s difference to Diniz his team-mate, who actually faired very well against Salo, who didn't do a shabby job against Irvine, who was doing pretty well against Schumacher that year which showed how great a race he drove that year. I think Diniz was quite under-rated actually.

raphael123
25th April 2007, 13:43
An even bigger questionmark could be put over him, as he is the ultimate case of someone who never quite got the equipment under him, whereas Patrese and Hakkinen did.



I wouldn't necessarily agree. I loved Jean Alesi - and he deserved much more achievements, but I think he's one of those drivers who shone in an average car, but when it came to take advantage of having good machinery, he never lived up to expectation - a bit like Heinz Harold Frentzen and Fisichella in that respect.

25th April 2007, 14:17
I wouldn't necessarily agree. I loved Jean Alesi - and he deserved much more achievements, but I think he's one of those drivers who shone in an average car, but when it came to take advantage of having good machinery, he never lived up to expectation - a bit like Heinz Harold Frentzen and Fisichella in that respect.

Except that, unlike Fisi and Frentzen, Jean never drove a car that won a World Championship.

Did he ever have good machinery?

Don't count his Ferrari years as an example of him having good machinery because the best one he had (95) was only just above average....some of the others (92 & 93) were utter dogs.

The 96 Benetton should have been a race-winner, but his team-mate didn't make it go any quicker either so maybe it wasn't quite the car that Schumi had the year before.

No, for me the thing that ruined Jean's talent was timing.....being the star driver at Ferrari when Ferrari couldn't organise a piss-up in a brewery, let alone build a race-car capable of doing much, did not give him the chance to develop his race-craft and strategical thinking.

He didn't have the luxury that champions require to be un-emotional and therefore Jean always looked like he was trying too hard in awful cars.

That is a bad habit to develop. Very few drivers ever recover from having spent years driving crap cars....and those that do have the good fortune to be given a mega-car to play with (Mansell is a prime example).....something Jean never got.

For me, Jean Alesi was the talent that got away.

raphael123
25th April 2007, 15:59
Except that, unlike Fisi and Frentzen, Jean never drove a car that won a World Championship.

Did he ever have good machinery?

Don't count his Ferrari years as an example of him having good machinery because the best one he had (95) was only just above average....some of the others (92 & 93) were utter dogs.

The 96 Benetton should have been a race-winner, but his team-mate didn't make it go any quicker either so maybe it wasn't quite the car that Schumi had the year before.

No, for me the thing that ruined Jean's talent was timing.....being the star driver at Ferrari when Ferrari couldn't organise a piss-up in a brewery, let alone build a race-car capable of doing much, did not give him the chance to develop his race-craft and strategical thinking.

He didn't have the luxury that champions require to be un-emotional and therefore Jean always looked like he was trying too hard in awful cars.

That is a bad habit to develop. Very few drivers ever recover from having spent years driving crap cars....and those that do have the good fortune to be given a mega-car to play with (Mansell is a prime example).....something Jean never got.

For me, Jean Alesi was the talent that got away.

True, he never had a title winning car - well at least he never had a team-mate who managed to win a title in the same car.

I would agree that 96 was probably the best car he had. That was definately a car capable of winning, which he failed to do, but that by no means he wasn't capable of winning a GP (and he did didn't he once!). However, I don't think his performances suggest he was any better than say e.g. Johnny Herbert.

ArrowsFA1
25th April 2007, 16:18
I don't think his performances suggest he was any better than say e.g. Johnny Herbert.
And what could Herbert have achieved had he not suffered that accident at Brands Hatch?

raphael123
25th April 2007, 16:30
And what could Herbert have achieved had he not suffered that accident at Brands Hatch?

Umm, we'll never know :) Though there are many drivers who impress like Herbert in the lower formula's, and fail in F1 e.g. Pizzonia? Sato?

I was always impressed with how well Hebert performed against Rubens after his 99 victory. He was mightily impressive after that, while beforehand Rubens was clearly the quicker of the two!

25th April 2007, 18:52
As somebody who was working in Formula Three in the mid-to-late 1980's, when both Herbert & Hill were driving, the general consensus at the time was that Damon was good, but the outstanding British talent at the time was Johnny Herbert.

Had Johnny's right leg remained the same length as his left, it would have been he and not Hill who would have grabbed the headlines in the 1990's.

Such are the swings and arrows of outrageous fortune.

raphael123
26th April 2007, 09:43
As somebody who was working in Formula Three in the mid-to-late 1980's, when both Herbert & Hill were driving, the general consensus at the time was that Damon was good, but the outstanding British talent at the time was Johnny Herbert.

Had Johnny's right leg remained the same length as his left, it would have been he and not Hill who would have grabbed the headlines in the 1990's.

Such are the swings and arrows of outrageous fortune.

As I said, there are many drivers who impress hugely in the lower formula's, yet fail to live up to that expectation when they enter F1. To say his accident resulted in his relative lack of success in F1 is pure speculation :)

ioan
26th April 2007, 12:12
If anyone has doubts about Hill's abilities as a racing driver they need look no further than Suzuka 1994.

I would rather look to Hungary 97, not the expected result but only for mechanical gremlins. His best drive in my opinion.

26th April 2007, 14:38
As I said, there are many drivers who impress hugely in the lower formula's, yet fail to live up to that expectation when they enter F1. To say his accident resulted in his relative lack of success in F1 is pure speculation :)

It's not complete speculation.

What has to be considered was that he was dropped by Benetton half-way through 1989 due to the after-effects of his injury, not because of a lack of results based on his natural abilities. Benetton themselves said at the time that they had rushed Herbert's recovery.

It was a long time after that when he got a second chance in F1, due to the perception that he was not physically fit.

The key to transferring lower-formula success into F1 success is keeping the momentum going...being in the right place at the right time.....and it was solely due to the effects of his F3000 crash (which wasn't his fault, by the way) that Johnny lost the momentum in his career.

After that, he was never in a position to re-create the momentum that had seen Benetton sign him in the first place. By the time he got a competitive drive again with Benetton in '95, the momentum had swung to the other driver on that team.

So, whilst it is true that not all lower-formula stars make it big in F1, there is a big difference between being dropped because of a lack of talent causing a failure to be competitive and being dropped because of the effects of an injury.

raphael123
26th April 2007, 15:03
It's not complete speculation.

What has to be considered was that he was dropped by Benetton half-way through 1989 due to the after-effects of his injury, not because of a lack of results based on his natural abilities. Benetton themselves said at the time that they had rushed Herbert's recovery.

It was a long time after that when he got a second chance in F1, due to the perception that he was not physically fit.

The key to transferring lower-formula success into F1 success is keeping the momentum going...being in the right place at the right time.....and it was solely due to the effects of his F3000 crash (which wasn't his fault, by the way) that Johnny lost the momentum in his career.

After that, he was never in a position to re-create the momentum that had seen Benetton sign him in the first place. By the time he got a competitive drive again with Benetton in '95, the momentum had swung to the other driver on that team.

So, whilst it is true that not all lower-formula stars make it big in F1, there is a big difference between being dropped because of a lack of talent causing a failure to be competitive and being dropped because of the effects of an injury.

I'm not stating that Herbert wouldn't have won a title, or won more races without the incident. But at the same time you can't claim he would have - that is speculation :) Hope that clears things up for you :)

26th April 2007, 16:10
Don't make me go all legal on your ass.

Since this is a forum and not a Courtroom, speculation is admissable evidence when it's based on previously confirmed facts.

But, OK, if you want to be pedantic so be it.

I'll ask you this, though........is it speculation to say that Damon Hill wouldn't have challenged for the 1994 title had his team-mate not been killed at Imola?

So far I've never heard any-one suggest that Damon was going to be capable of regularly beating Ayrton Senna. The general consensus is that he wouldn't have done so.

So, is that correct or merely speculation and therefore should be immediately dismissed?

If you don't believe in speculation that is based on factual reasoning being capable of forming a assesment, then you can't even have an opinion on that, which kind of scuppers any arguments that Ayrton Senna was a better driver than Damon.

No further questions, M'lud.

raphael123
26th April 2007, 16:42
lol funny.

I wasn't trying to be fussy - I was just stating the obvious. We can only speculate to how good Herbert would have been without his accident. Or do you have powers we don't know? :dozey:

And no, it's unlikely Hill would have challenged for the title, because the focus in the team would have been concentrated towards Senna, and he would have had 2, not 1 driver who could beat him.

I don't think they are really comparable though. We knew the quality of Senna before he died (obviously). With Herbert, we don't know how good he would have been in F1 before his accident, only how good he was in F3 etc, which isn't really a claim for saying if your great there, you'll be great in F1. If Herbert was winning races in F1, then had his shunt, and was never the same after - fair enough - you'd have a point, but the fact Herbert never really showed us what he could do in F1 before his accident, makes it speculation.

A good example, would be Schumacher's accident in 99. Though Schumacher of the 00's was definately not the Schuamcher of the late 90's, he was still immense. If he never reached the same heights again, you could maybe say that that accident meant he lost out on some more success.

Hope that makes sense :up:

Erki
26th April 2007, 16:55
As I have understood, Herbert's crash was much worse than Schumacher's, weren't his feet completely shattered?

F1boat
26th April 2007, 17:19
Damon Hill was my childhood hero and I will always have great respect for him. In my opinion he is a great driver, who have scored many wins and have won the world championship, which in my opinion is proof that he is very special. IMO the only reason that he looks average to some people is that he had to face Michael Shumacher - the best driver I have ever seen in F1.

raphael123
27th April 2007, 09:39
As I have understood, Herbert's crash was much worse than Schumacher's, weren't his feet completely shattered?

Who said that they were as bad as each other? :dozey:
I think you've completely missed the point point - so I'll attempt at explaining it for you with simpler words :)

We knew the quality of Schumacher in F1 before his accident. We didn't know the quality of Herbert in F1 before his accident.

Therefore, it's fair to say we can make a more accurate predictions of what Schumacher would achieve if he had an accident as bad as Herberts, and didn't do as well after that accident. Herbert, though was mighty impressive in the lower formula's before his accident, we never got a chance to see the quality of this guy in F1 before his accident. Therefore making claims he would have won titles, and many many races is pure speculation :up:

raphael123
27th April 2007, 09:44
Damon Hill was my childhood hero and I will always have great respect for him. In my opinion he is a great driver, who have scored many wins and have won the world championship, which in my opinion is proof that he is very special. IMO the only reason that he looks average to some people is that he had to face Michael Shumacher - the best driver I have ever seen in F1.

Who would you put Hill alongside then? The likes of Prost? Senna? Or the likes of Hakkinen, Kimi, Alonso? Or anyone else?

ArrowsFA1
27th April 2007, 09:59
We knew the quality of Schumacher in F1 before his accident. We didn't know the quality of Herbert in F1 before his accident.

Therefore, it's fair to say we can make a more accurate predictions of what Schumacher would achieve if he had an accident as bad as Herberts...
Predictions...maybe...but any prediction like that would be based on pure speculation ;)

We know Damon Hill was the 1996 World Champion :s mokin:

raphael123
27th April 2007, 11:48
Predictions...maybe...but any prediction like that would be based on pure speculation ;)



Mmmm, I think they are quite different. But rather than explaining it again, I'll just let you re-read it, and you can ponder on that for a while :)

27th April 2007, 14:58
As I have understood, Herbert's crash was much worse than Schumacher's, weren't his feet completely shattered?

Yes Erki, it was much worse than Schumi's.

Johnny's crash was a double-impact affair. The first impact was into the guard-rail, nose-first.

The thing with early carbon-fibre tubs is that they were only strong for one impact.

Unfortunately for Johnny, the car then re-bounded across the track into the parapet of a bridge, again nose-first.

When Herbert was air-lifted to hospital, the surgeons were initially considering amputating his right foot.

That's much worse than Schumi's leg-breaker. At no time was Schumi likely to lose a foot.

raphael123
27th April 2007, 15:35
Tamb, I hope you realise that I wasn't comparing Johnny's accident to Michaels in terms of injuries? Otherwise you've completely missed the point.

My whole point was we knew what Michael could do in F1 before that accident. We didn't know what Herbert could do before his crash, which is why it's all speculative :)

I wish I never mentioned Michael Schumacher now lol!!

27th April 2007, 18:00
Tamb, I hope you realise that I wasn't comparing Johnny's accident to Michaels in terms of injuries? Otherwise you've completely missed the point.

My whole point was we knew what Michael could do in F1 before that accident. We didn't know what Herbert could do before his crash, which is why it's all speculative :)

I wish I never mentioned Michael Schumacher now lol!!

No, I wasn't comparing the two....just replying to a question.

Although I do find it odd that you consider that Michael wasn't the same driver after his Silverstone 99 crash. Could I ask on what basis?

Considering that he won another 5 titles and some 50-odd GP's after that, to say that he was somehow affected by his accident is surely, as Arrows has pointed out, utter speculation?

raphael123
30th April 2007, 11:00
No, I wasn't comparing the two....just replying to a question.

Although I do find it odd that you consider that Michael wasn't the same driver after his Silverstone 99 crash. Could I ask on what basis?

Considering that he won another 5 titles and some 50-odd GP's after that, to say that he was somehow affected by his accident is surely, as Arrows has pointed out, utter speculation?

I think most people would agree Schumacher's approach was much different from 00 until he retired, compared to his style from 94-99. However I think that was more to fact he had the best car after 00, compared to before when apart from in 95, he had an inferior car, which required different methods to get the success he did (some of them very questionable!).

I don't think I've stated he was any weaker, just a different kind of driver. I think I said he was different. I actually even said 'he was still immense. If he never reached the same heights again, you could maybe say that that accident meant he lost out on some more success'.

So I've said he still reached the same heights. But I stick with what I intended to say, that Schumacher of the 00's was a different Schumacher of the 90's.

wedge
15th May 2007, 17:16
Revealing Damon Hill interview:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/columnists/paul_kimmage/article1782099.ece

futuretiger9
15th May 2007, 22:46
Tamb, I hope you realise that I wasn't comparing Johnny's accident to Michaels in terms of injuries? Otherwise you've completely missed the point.

My whole point was we knew what Michael could do in F1 before that accident. We didn't know what Herbert could do before his crash, which is why it's all speculative :)

I wish I never mentioned Michael Schumacher now lol!!


I remember being very frustrated when it became clear early in Johnny's F1 career that his injuries would probably prevent him from reaching the VERY top. By the time his feet recovered some more, the vital early momentum had been lost.

savage86
16th May 2007, 11:26
Who would you put Hill alongside then? The likes of Prost? Senna? Or the likes of Hakkinen, Kimi, Alonso? Or anyone else?

Of course Damon was not as good as Senna, but Senna was killed and Damon then had to fight for the title.
One telling point about Damon was that when Shumi was banned for a few races for ignoring the black flag Damon won them all. He closed the title gap right down, and without Shumi Bennaton were way back I’m not sure if they even scored any points.

This persuades me that Damon was at that time the second best F1 driver in the field.
Unlike JV Damon also won races when he went into slower cars, leading in Hungry by over 30 seconds over Mclarens, Ferrari’s, Williams. JV never did anything like that he never got even a sniff of a win. I’m a bit bias because Damon was always my favorite and no way is he as good as Shumi but in my opinion he was better than JV and most of the other drivers around 1994 to 1997. Maybe Mika and him are a close match, who knows what Damon could have done if Frank hadnt sacked him.