Williams: Hill vs Frentzen

[ioan]

Dunno, I've got impression your a Ferrari fan, presumably you dislike them because they've been to 2 main teams to beat Ferrari consistantly or challenge them over past 15 years (making exception of Renault/Bennetton).

What you think of Renault?

In what ways do Williams treat their drivers badly? I'm not disagreeing, but just want you to explain yourself a bit more

I've found Renault to be a genuinely humble team, Alonso being the notable exception, but he's also maturing now.

Williams have reached the point when they can't afford any arrogance anymore. Nor changing drivers like if they were underwear.
Let's remember that Williams always believed that it's all about engineering and drivers were way less important as long as they have the best car, to the point of having Head decide what set-up the drivers should run, even if the drivers didn't agree!
Sacking their drivers while in the hunt for the title, was something that I could hardly believe, and I was no Damon Hill fan.

As for McLaren, their arrogance has always been there, with "we could and should have won, if it wasn't for....", or with their claims of equality between drivers after what happened in Oz 1998!
And all this reached the highest level with their cheating and lying last season, and incredible show of arrogance.

[ArrowsFA1]

I've found Renault to be a genuinely humble team...

Briatore could hardly be described as humble but generally I agree, particularly where Pat Symonds is concerned. He's been with this team since the Toleman F2 days in 1980 and is one of the 'good guys'.

What you think of Renault?

Fellow 'Grandees', and therefore much respected.

Now, those pesky 'Garagistas' on the other hand, with their inability to build an engine.....

[Valve Bounce]

It is ironical that one of the highest, if not the highest paid driver Frank ever put in his tanks was Ralfie.

In 1996 I agree with you that Hill was let go because he wanted more than what Williams was willing to give.

I think there was more to it than that.

Hill, as a World champion, could understandably ask for a high retainer, and indeed got one at Arrows.

But when it was announced that he was been dropped, it was in late August 1996 and he wasn't a World Champion at that point.

Moreover, his 'rookie' team-mate was pretty much equal with him and over at Ferrari Schumacher was performing minor miracles with a dog of a car and so highlighting to the world that, in terms of value for money, Williams were maybe not going to get the bang-for-their-buck if they retained Hill on a big salary.

Besides which, the 1995 season had, to all intents and purposes, seen Hill throw away a very good opportunity to win a title.

1995 should have been Williams year, given that Benetton had to come up with a chassis to work with the Renault engine at short notice whereas Williams had 6 years collaboration with the Regie to help them. Williams produced a car that was strong enough to win races from the start of the year to the end, so there was nothing inherently wrong with the chassis they produced....which leaves the driver as the weakest link.

Frentzen had been a stable-mate of Schumacher in the early days of the Mercedes junior programme, and was rated by Jochen Mass (I think it was Mass) as actually quicker. It turns out, of course, that he wasn't....and that Mass has since said that he had been saying that Frentzen was better at working to find the quickest set-up, not neccesarily the same as being the quickest driver.

Frentzen also had a difficult time with inter-team relationships.......he quit the Mercedes programme to do F3000....at the time it maybe didn't look like he was a mercurial type, but hindsight can reveal that this was the first showings of a characteristic which continued in fits and starts all the way to his Audi DTM experience.......or at least it transpired that he needed a more cosseted team atmosphere than Williams, notoriously poor in that department, in which to shine. Sauber & Jordan were better equipped than Williams to extract the best from a shrinking violet/emotionally charged (delete according to taste) driver.

With hindsight, it's probably fair to say that Williams didn't do their homework that well, as they perhaps should have seen that Frentzen only blossomed in a certain type of non-Williams environment.

Williams have long been of the attitude that the drivers job is to perform since he is been paid to perform, and there is nothing inherently wrong with that approach. After all, the very best (Prost, Senna) and the very strong-willed (Jones, Rosberg, Mansell) will do exactly that.

But that approach doesn't always work, and sometimes there has to be more accommodation given to extract the best out of a particular character.

However, hindsight wasn't available in 1996, so while it's correct to say that Williams made the wrong call, there were very legitimate reasons for making the call in that glorious summer.

It's also perhaps worth adding that Prost & Senna were both on very big retainers for their Williams contracts. I don't have a link, but memory says they were the highest paid drivers on the grid.

Williams would pay top bucks if they thought it represented best value.

[wedge]

I remember HHF saying he didn't like the atmosphere at Williams, found it too cold for his liking.

Ironic how Frank Williams has said he regrets not treating Carlos Reutimann more differently they could've won the 1981 WDC.

[futuretiger9]

I remember HHF saying he didn't like the atmosphere at Williams, found it too cold for his liking.

Ironic how Frank Williams has said he regrets not treating Carlos Reutimann more differently they could've won the 1981 WDC.

I have always had mixed feeling about the Williams policy on drivers. A little pragmatism could certainly have helped Reutemann in '81.

As for the Hill v Frentzen debate, I think Frank just felt that Damon was reaching his own personal summit, and would never be as good again. Frentzen, who was flavour of the month, seemed like a logical choice, and in any event the team already had Villeneuve as insurance.

[F1boat]

I think that it was horrible. Hill was a very good driver and IMO the results showed that this was a dreadful mistake.

[PolePosition_1]

As for McLaren, their arrogance has always been there, with "we could and should have won, if it wasn't for....", or with their claims of equality between drivers after what happened in Oz 1998!

Thats slightly harsh considering it was a drivers agreement. The team didn't enforce that, and provided both drivers with an equal chance of winning the race.