Did Heinz-Harald Frentzen UNDERACHIEVE at Williams in 1997?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 1 січ 2023
- Happy new year, and all that.
There's talk on an internet about about Heinz-Harald Frentzen was given a golden ticket at Williams in 1997 only to not do so well. One win to the seven scored by Villeneuve and ended up with half of the points of the 1997 champion. To add to this, he was only bumped up to second in the drivers standings because Schumacher was kicked out.
But was it all as bad as we think? I've dug up the results and stats to see if he did actually do badly, or if he even did exactly as he should have done.
Enjoy! And remember to like and subscribe for more!
------
Business enquiries: amsimracing@gmail.com
Patreon: www.patreon.com/aidanmillward
Discord: / discord
Instagram: amillward01
Twitter: Aidan_Millward
Steam: AdmiralLaWind
----
CPU: Ryzen 5 2600 @3.9gHz
Motherboard: MSI B450 Mortar Micro ATX
RAM: Corsair Vengeance 2x 8gb @ 3000mHz
GPU: MSI GTX1660 w/ slight OC
Editing Software: Sony Vegas 14 Steam Edition
Wheel: Simucube 2 Pro - Cube Controls Formula Pro Rim
Pedals: Fanatec Clubsport V3 with Brake Performance Kit - Спорт
HHF was a very underrated driver. He had a legitimate shot at the title when he drove with Jordan. Then there was that 3-way tie in qualifying during the 1997 European GP that was insane.
I'd have loved for history to go differently in 99. Seeing Frentzen the WDC instead of Mika
I read an interview with HHF a few years ago and he admitted that one of the reasons why he struggled so much at Williams was because at Sauber there was only 8 or 9 different things to adjust the setup of the car but at Williams there was about 20 odd, as they could afford the systems to micro set the car up where Sauber couldn't. There were so many that he never really fully understood them right until he left. As you have said because the way that Frank and Patrick ran the team he never really had the bottle to admit that he didn't really understand all the systems because he was scared that they'd just think that he was some kind of idiot and would look to replace him with one of the test drivers who they knew did know the car.
When he got to Jordan however, although they were starting to introduce some of the same systems he was able to work with EJ and the rest of the team to get the best from the car in a more relaxed atmosphere!!!!!
Well, I mean they would've replaced him. Frank and Patrick were definitely trigger happy on letting drivers go because their theory was always "We have the best car, literally any driver can win in it". According to The Race in their podcasts, every driver was compared to Alan Jones or Nigel Mansell. If you wern't like either of them, you were not treated well
I am absolutely here for more Heinz-Harald Frentzen content
Reminds me of a video he did a few months ago about Giancarlo Fisichella. Love the mid pack heroes of the late 90s. Probably get the Jarno Trulli episode next.
I second this.
@@KarlBainbridge Frank Dernie says he had to get on the radio to tell Jarno to "push" during the races, as otherwise he "went to sleep" and didn't keep up the concentration, unlike his mega qually laps... He notes that drivers like Fernando Alonso never have to be told to push, as they are always driving at 100%. ...This would explain a lot about the formation of the Trulli trains during races!
Frank Dernie also said that Kobayashi was the opposite: good at racing but not so good at qualifying, and wonders what Toyota could have achieved with a driver who was good at both qualifying *and* racing...
@@TassieLorenzo they were nearly there with Glock! He was starting to become a genuine frontrunner in 2009. The 2010 car is one of those what might have been stories.
After a pre season test early in '94 legend has it that Ayrton had asked someone who had been driving the Sauber that he had been behind because it was going pretty quickly and he had to work quite hard to keep up with it. It was HHF.
Of course, Senna may not have fully realised how difficult the Williams was at the point, and the Sauber may have been on a low fuel run, but he was clearly impressed.
1999 French Grand Prix is surely worth a video on its own!! What a crazy race it was!!
It’s the only race at Magny Cours that was interesting.
@@AidanMillward What about 2004 and Michael’s four stop strategy?
@@KarlBainbridge Michael could have done a nine stop in that car and still won.
2000 was great too in my book :)
@@1dree1 2000 would be one of the all time great races. 1991 was great as well.
JV had been with the team for a year, whereas HHF took time to acclimatise…
…also, Damon Hill deserves a LOT more credit for how brilliant he was at developing cars & setting them up. Everyone raves about raw talent & speed, but the technical know how & ability to communicate effectively with engineers can make a car much faster than, well, a faster driver could. Just ask Adrian Newey / Nigel Mansell!
I think the same situation is happening with sergio perez at red bull. In he got promoted to a top team and did some great things there, but was ultimately no match for their champion teammate. Making them look a lot worse than they actually drove
I'm actually amazed people have been praising Perez for all these years. There was a huge question mark when it came to him back in 2012 and his good Sauber drives. While Ferrari, who had him in their driver academy, refrained from picking him up and promote him McLaren actually did in 2013. Turns out he was no match for Jenson Button, himself in his nadir years, and his time at a top team came to a stop.
After that he had a few good drives in the mid-field for Force India/Racing Point but certainly didn't set the world on fire or decimated his (rather average) team mates.
He is a lousy qualifier and holds the unenviable records of most starts needed before his first win and most qualifying sessions before his first (and only) pole.
I honestly don't see him lasting the 2023 season. If the competition is hard from whatever team is on top expect him to be made the same scapegoat as other Red Bull drivers in the past.
Neither Frentzen nor Perez ever were consistent enough to be champions, but at least Frentzen had the raw speed.
@@kungfucow547 That's a very unfair assessment, in my opinion. While I don't think he's a top tier F1 driver, he's definitely very capable. Just looking at stats doesn't tell you everything about a driver, nor are wins and pole positions a proper metric. Sure, he can't adapt all that well to a car designed with Verstappen's driving in mind (sharp grippy front end and lively rear end), but he can hold his own against some of the biggest names in F1 and early in the season when the car was more prone to understeer he was flying. It's also interesting you mentioned certain stats that make him look bad, yet you conveniently didn't mention he nearly finished 2nd in the championship this year.
@@kungfucow547 Eh? Even Jenson said Checo was bloody quick and tough to beat! I think it was his attitude that was questionable in his early F1 days. Much less so now. Years of grinding tooling about in midfield cars either toughens one up or grinds one down!
Frentzen is one of the most underrated drivers ever.
JV was an absolute animal in those days. I can only imagine what the " team mate " relationship was like.
Villeneuve was a weapon Same as Damon hill When They were at Williams 96-97 taken away from them the predators became easy prey. Hill wasn't a bad racing driver in the wet I'll give him that
“Damon wasn’t sacked, he didn’t have his contract renewed” I think not renewing someone’s contract is the equivalent of sacking them. Aiden should be a lawyer.
@@speedmann194 The bottom line is that they still landed a drive at top teams and made the most of it. F1 history is full of drivers who never even got the chance at a top team and quite a few, dozens in fact, who had a top car but didn't win the title. Hill was highly rated both by Adrian Newey and Ferrari - who had him on their shopping list in 1995 if they couldn't coax Schumacher from Benetton. Gerhard Berger mention Hill as one of the most underrated drivers he raced against and he said he was a good driver living under the shadow of the titans (Prost, Senna, Schumacher).
Villeneuve's flaw was a man. His manager Craig Pollock. Basically the F1 version of Colonel Tom Parker (Elvis' infamous manager).
@@kungfucow547 I see what you're saying and you make a lot of sense. But I personally feel they never achieved much in anything other then the absolute best. Think Belloff, senna Monaco, senna at lotus Portugal 85 Lotus hadn't won for years before senna came along, and they never won after he left. Schumacher equalled Jordans best position on debut or beating benneton first season with Ferrari, and instantly fighting with Williams once again 96
while his teammate Irvine was struggling to hold off Jordans. Hakkenin another driver I don't believe achieved much other than in the absolute best. I guess I should stop comparing drivers all the time to two of the best of all time. But I feel that's the only way to compare how great someone is. I don't like judging someone in the best car. I like to judge a driver when they drove not the best machine
@@kungfucow547 I think we also need to remember hill did get places because of his last name. Wasn't there a test he did with another driver lap times were very similar
But hill got the nod because his last name was hill and the British sponsor preferred the British name ? Hill was very good. I know it sounds like I'm belittling him, and I guess in a way I am, but also I'm not. I do believe he deserved his right to be there he was fast. Doesn't change the fact that I don't believe him or Villeneuve achieved much in anything other then the absolute best though same goes for hakkenin
I think that Damon Hill was also a casualty of the style of management at Williams which ultimately hurt his replacement Frentzen in the end. This is a cycle that seems to have happened throughout the history of the team.
Hill had a very solid rookie full season as the #2 driver to Prost in 93. In 94 he had a great season with some really good drives (with his win in Suzuka being a truly great F1 drive) especially considering what happened to his teammate that year. I honestly think that the tragic events of that season and losing the championship in the way he did broke him.
And rather than putting an arm around him during his crap 95 season, Williams dumped him and hired Frentzen instead before 96 even happened.
I’d be interested to learn more about what the hell happened with the drive Mansell should have had for 95. At the time everyone was blaming him for it falling through because he was too greedy, old, overweight, etc, but from his performances during the 94 races he drove, he was clearly still fast. Plus, he’d have been a great mentor figure for Hill during that difficult 95 season. I’m thinking more Williams shenanigans based on their form on this stuff 🤷♂️
@@ymeshulin Very true. Got it mixed up with the Pacific GP that year. I’ve corrected my comment. I remember it being very wet and the result decided on aggregate and Martin Brundle hitting a Marshal and almost ending up under a digger. 94 was such a weird and scary season. Times have changed a bit since then, thankfully.
Didn't Mansell say something like "see you next year, guys!" to the Williams team in Australia 1994, only to return in a too small and incredibly slow McLaren in 1995? It's understandable Williams went for the much younger Coulthard, but given the huge amount of mistakes he made that season, they probably would have been better off with Mansell.
@@mrdraw2087 Something must have gone very wrong with that deal at the last minute and I’d love to know exactly what happened.
There’s an interesting interview of him on here (Big Zeddie’s channel I think) talking to Murray Walker on his return to F1 in 94 where he’s talking about having to take F1 seriously and live and breathe it and not be a ‘Michael Andretti who just turns up for the race weekends and goes home again’.
He even talks about moving back to the Isle of Man and buying a new home there. He was clearly really serious about making the return full-time for 95.
Can only think it’s because he was demanding too much money and Marlboro paid him big bucks to drive the McLaren as the other comment on this thread says. It certainly sounds very plausible.
Still, Williams shot themselves in the foot massively on that in my opinion though. Even if Mansell demanded stupid money, I think he would have dragged Damon’s performances up a lot that year and paid off tenfold. That’s the benefit of hindsight though, I guess…
@@mrdraw2087 DC at Williams in 94 was arguably worse than Frentzen in a Williams in 97!.
@@gmay8493And Rothmans weren’t able to stump up the cash???
I still remember the slo-mo replay of HHF's brake disc shattering into 18.3 pieces.
If you can't trust the car to hang together, how can you focus on your job of driving fast?
As a Yankee from small town Indiana and someone who didn’t start watching f1 until the 2010s I didn’t understand your accent and always thought this guy’s name was “Hightower Fredson” lol forgive my ignorance and love your videos. I’ve learned so much about racing history from you.
Hightower Fredson seems like a great name!
As an American from a major city of Philly I’ve been watching since 1990
I’m American and never thought his name name was Hightower Francine or whatever. lol
Another reason I heard that he underachieved at Williams was he didn't have a good working relationship with Patrick Head, in a test where he tested the 1996 car he cracked the chassis and Head was apparently so angry with him he sent him home.
Interesting, I have been perfecting performance files for 2 years for the 1997 mod for Grand Prix 4. I have run multiple seasons and based on the pure data I put in those files, the 1997 championship could have been a three-way between MSCH, JV and HHF, if HHF hadn't been so unlucky. He scored the most fastest laps and was in contention for the win on multiple occasions, like Hungary or Monza. I bet he could have won Monaco if it had been dry too.
Great video, I first started watching F1 in 1998, so Frentzen is one of the guys from the era that is by far the most nostalgic for me. I'd love to see a similar video about Alex Wurz, the guy got a podium in only his third race, but then his career just sort of fizzled out and he became better known as a long time test driver for McLaren.
JV said in an interview that he tried to help HHF by convincing him to go with his setups instead of Heads, because they were more often than not quicker. And I think the two of them got along really well.
97 was peak for me. What if Olivier didn’t break his legs? Title challenger?
2nd or 3rd with 2 wins imo. Om Bridgestones, if Hill was a moral winner in Hungary, Panis would've won by a lap based off his early season form.
Paris is the definitely the epitome of underrated
I see a lot of Damon Hill fans in the comments. But let's be real people he was insanely lucky to land the cars he did and in his best years faced very inexperienced teammates(Coulthard 1994/1995, Villeneuve 1996). People are acting like Villeneuve was in his prime in his rookie year. Webber would be world champion if the 2006 Williams was dominant with Nico Rosberg as his teammate(rookie)
Been watching Big Zeddie's 97 season uploads and one thing that's catching my ear is the coverage of Frentzen during the races. Murray and Brundle never seem very impressed with him and once or twice had to correct themselves after assuming he crashed out due to skill issues when it was actually stuff like brake failure or another car shunting him off.
The thing about Belgium 98 is if you watch f1tv you can hear Murray and Martin talk about Williams trying to get Ralf so I think the move was already in the works. The team orders just expedited it.
Think Frank wanted Ralf and JPM for 1999 but had to wait until 2001
Wasn't there also some injunctions in court between Ralf and EJ by the time Belgium rolled around?
@@ahogg5960 I believe so, I think that's what Murray and Martin mentioned. The Michael getting upset and the story Eddie tells about the pay-off is what solved it.
FW thought he was the Schumi beater, KC has confirmed that in podcasts, and he’s close to the Williams team.
I think one problem back then, no one quite knew how good schumi was. People thought Williams cars should just win,sadly life isn’t that simple.
Damon Hill in 95 suffered with the Senna loss more I think, and the car made him look worse (though at times he didn’t help himself). He lost potential wins in Interlargos when leading after all pit stops easily. Further car failures in Canada (gearbox), Germany (Driveshaft) lost him potential wins (go and add 30 points to Damon’s score, and take off at least 4 for Schumis Interlargos win). Am I trying to say Damon would have won 95 - no, but give Hill these points and you see a different less under pressure Damon at the end of 95
Point is Damon was actually better than we thought in the mid 90s, and Schmi went on to be the greatest of all time (Appreciate that’s my opinion). At the time though, we thought schumi is great, Damon dodgy, but there must be someone you can put in a Williams to beat him. At the time, it was the right decision with logic. With what we knew 10 years later, maybe not. Benefit of hindsight aye.
Would further add, either way, it probably made very little difference to the history of the sport.
Williams always built good cars and got a plucky useful driver from the midfield and watched him beat everyone. Schumi was just to good for that
If it wasn't for a hydraulic problem affecting the throttle and gearchange, Damon Hill would have won at Hungary. Hill was fast all weekend in the Arrows - Yamaha, more than 40 seconds ahead of Villeneuve before the cars failure with just a couple of laps to go.
È FFFFFFFFFFFERRMO FFFFRRRRENTZENNN!
- Gianfranco Mazzoni, 1999 european GP shortly after HHF's pit
Frentzen's 1997 season was quite bad indeed, quite similar to Coulthard's 1998 season, as they both managed to win only one race in the best car (San Marino).
Frentzen was unlucky to retire in some of his strongest races, although even in the best case he would have won just a couple of races.
Australia - Villeneuve messes up his start (as usual) and gets taken out by Irvine, otherwise he would have won comfortably, given his qualifying speed. Frentzen was on a risky 2-stop strategy, but would have beaten Coulthard if not for that slow second stop and the brake problems, so he would have finished second behind Villeneuve. Villeneuve-Frentzen 10-6.
Brazil - Villeneuve was lucky for the race to be restarted. He managed to pass the slow Schumacher before the end of the first lap and win comfortably, even though Berger was able to keep up with him after having passed Häkkinen en Schumacher as well. Frentzen had a horrible weekend and was stuck in the midfield, unable to score points. Villeneuve-Frentzen 20-6.
Argentina - Frentzen retires early in the race from second place. Villeneuve has a huge lead, but takes it a little bit too easy and almost gets beaten by Irvine. It should have been an easy 1-2 for Williams, though. Villeneuve-Frentzen 30-12.
San Marino - Frentzen loses second to Schumacher at the start, but in the first round of pit-stops the Williams drivers swap positions, probably as Villeneuve's gearbox starts to malfunction. Villeneuve later retires when he at least should have been third. Villeneuve-Frentzen 34-22.
Monaco - Frentzen is on pole, but Williams for some reason fails to check the weather and lets both drivers start on slicks on a damp track with a dry-weather set-up. This predictably ends in disaster, with both drivers crashing out when well outside the points. Had Williams done what every sane person would have done, Frentzen might have won the race from Schumacher and Villeneuve. Villeneuve-Frentzen 38-32.
Spain - Villeneuve masterfully manages his tires and wins quite easily, while Frentzen completely messes up his start and abuses his tires, so he finishes outside the points. Villeneuve-Frentzen 48-32.
Canada - Villeneuve spins out early in the race when in second place. Given Schumacher's tire problems later in the race, he might even have won the race. Frentzen's recovery drive earns him a fourth place, but without Villeneuve's spin and Coulthard's stall in the pit-lane he would only have scored a single point. Villeneuve-Frentzen 54-33.
France - For most part of the race Schumacher pulls away from Frentzen, who pulls away from Irvine and Villeneuve. When it finally starts to rain, Schumacher and Frentzen unwisely decide to stay out, whereas Irvine and Villeneuve only change to intermediates when the track is drying out again. Villeneuve tries to pass Irvine in the last corner, but spins and almost loses fifth to Alesi, who had taken out Coulthard earlier that lap. Villeneuve-Frentzen 57-39.
Britain - Frentzen stalls his engine at the start and then clumsily tangles with Verstappen on the opening lap as he is way too much in a hurry to make up places. Villeneuve loses a lot of time in the pits, but as Schumacher and Häkkinen retire, this doesn't matter. Villeneuve-Frentzen 67-39.
Germany - Frentzen outqualifies Villeneuve, but tangles with Irvine in the first corner. On pure pace, Frentzen would most likely only have scored a few points, whereas Villeneuve wouldn't even be in the points when he spun out. Villeneuve-Frentzen 67-41.
Hungary - Frentzen is on course to win the race, when he suddenly loses his fuel-tank connector before his only scheduled pit-stop, which forced him to retire. Villeneuve was then incredibly lucky to inherit the win as Hill's Arrows lost speed in the closing stages. Villeneuve-Frentzen 71-51.
Belgium - Williams messes up their tire strategies once again in the wet. On full wets Villeneuve was unable to stop Schumacher and slipped to fifth. Frentzen's race is slightly less disastrous, although he was lucky to pick up a podium after Häkkinen's disqualification. Under normal circumstances, Villeneuve might have won and Frentzen would then be fifth. Villeneuve-Frentzen 81-53.
Italy - Frentzen is stronger than Villeneuve. A poor strategy costs him second place. Villeneuve is on a similarly bad strategy and is lucky not to lose fifth place as Häkkinen gets a puncture/flat-spots his tires after his pit-stop. Villeneuve-Frentzen 83-59.
Austria - Villeneuve recovers from a bad start and passes surprise leader Trulli, before the Italian blows his engine. Frentzen gets passed by Schumacher under yellow, which earns Schumacher a stop-and-go penalty. He then gets jumped by Coulthard in the pits. Under normal circumstances he would have finished fourth. The only unknown in this race was Häkkinen, who retired from the lead at the end of the first (!) lap with a broken engine. Villeneuve-Frentzen 93-62.
Luxembourg - The McLarens are way too fast for anyone until they blow their engines. Villeneuve likely would only have finished third otherwise. Frentzen has a fine recovery drive, which would then have earned him a fifth place. Villeneuve-Frentzen 97-64.
Japan - Villeneuve knows he will be disqualified in the race and tries to annoy Schumacher as much as he can. Somehow no-one tries to pass Schumacher, except Irvine, who then destroys Villeneuve's race. Villeneuve even loses fourth place to Häkkinen after a poor second stop, before he gets disqualified anyway. Frentzen manages to just jump the second Ferrari at the final round of pit-stops, denying Ferrari a 1-2. Villeneuve-Frentzen 100-70.
Europe - Villeneuve tries to pass Schumacher, when Schumacher turns in and only takes himself out. Frentzen loses third place to the McLarens as he is holding them up. Later he loses even more time when he stops at the Benetton pits. Villeneuve would have won the race, from Schumacher and Frentzen. Villeneuve-Frentzen 110-74.
All in all, the gap between Villeneuve and Frentzen would more or less be the same as in reality (81-42), although it would be smaller now in relative terms, as both drivers would have scored some 30 extra points.
HHF binned it in about 3 or 4 races in a row mid season, I actually thought they were going to fire him!
Hockenheim was more Frentzen's fault than Irvine's.
For those who complain of the decision to replace Hill with Frentzen (whether they know about the context and timing of the decision or not), it is interesting to consider that, as far as we know, there's no reason to think Frentzen did anything to bring about the mechanical issues that beset his car in 1997, so we have to assume the issues would still have arisen if Hill had been driving. As such, with Villeneuve that much further up the F1 learning curve in his second season, it seems unlikely that Hill would have been able to get anywhere near winning the championship that season. He might have taken enough points from Villeneuve to hand the title to Schumacher, but that's about it.
So I always chalk it up as a perfectly reasonable and understandable decision. I understand why Newey was upset at not being consulted when he'd been assured he would be, although arguably the biggest mistake Frank and Patrick made was in humouring him. Newey was an aero genius but he didn't know anything about the driver market. There's no reason why he should have had a say.
While he did have a string of retirements in 1997, so did Villeneuve. Each had 5 retirements (and Villeneuve had his Japan DQ on top).
Villeneuve’s finishing positions when classified: 1-1-1-1-4-1-1-5-5-1-1-3
The fact that he and Schumacher never shared a podium that year is well known, but the race in which Schumacher tried motorcar fusion was the only non-winner podium Villeneuve had that year.
True he punched that Jordan way above it's weight
@@speedmann194 But that was also due to: 1) Irvine not being quite on Schumacher's level, 2) Hakkinen getting punted out by Coulthard on two occasions and his own mistake at Monza, 3) Coulthard thinking he could be champion and going for wins and positions, when ultimately driving out so many times McLaren lost an easy constructors' championship, and 4) a very reluctant and careful Damon Hill who got dead scared following Schumacher's crash and knowing his own father's fate became wary of not pushing his luck/fate.
Don't forget Ferrari was a shitbox 97 it had bad under-steer on long sweeping corners. Michael had no right to be challenging for the title 97 Ferrari wasn't ready. It wasn't ready until 99 but Schumacher broke his leg early in season
@@speedmann194 yeah the Ferrari was such a shitbox in 1997 that Irvine took 5 podiums with it and fought for the win in Argentina. I guess Eddie could walk on water too 😂🤦♂️
@@rupertpupkin9630 I guess that's why Irvine finished the championship behind McLarens ,bennetons, Williams and finished 7th in the championship Irvine was really dominate wasn't he ?? Michael fought for the championship last round he had no right to be Ferrari wasn't good enough
It's also worth noting that in 98 after he had time to settle in at Williams he was generally with Villeneueve in terms of pace (albeit still probably the #2 in the team). Plenty of drivers let down in a new environment off the hop. Especially if the car and environment are heavily different. Had he been given say a 99 at Williams he probably would have been in Ralf's place driving them into the BMW years.
From something I read from Villeneuve, the '98 car was an absolute dog. JV stated that the car could only be drivable with maximum bump stops in the dampers and the car then had zero suspension travel. it's actually amazing what the two DID achieve that season.
@@djvycious I always took that as more of a comparator. Because they went from the best card on the grid in 97 to what was a midfield car. That must be quite jarring.
Hill had some similar thoughts on the Jordan for much of the season.
But yeah 98 tends to get looped in with 97 as HHF disappointing and I think it's a perfectly good season. Still was a bit slower than JV. Few less points. But JV is a good driver who was in his prime and he wasn't blown out ala Hamilton/Kovalainen or Alonso/Piquet, etc.
@@Meodread Thanks for continuing the conversation! Respectfully I somewhat disagree on some points. HHF wasn't even close to Villeneuve in the two seasons they spent together at Williams. Hill was no slouch but JV brought the fight to him in '96 from the first race. JV also challenged and beat Schumacher in '97. There was very little contest in pace when JV and HHF were together at Williams. That said, it's not a statement against HHF; the guy was bloody fast. Moreso, it is a testament to how bloody quick JV was in his heyday. One thing that JV had as an advantage was his skill in car setup. From his Indycar days, he was used to working closely with his mechanics and engineers and getting a setup that was exactly to his liking. In his Indycar days he would run setups different to the competition (see Road America '94). In his later F1 years, JV struggled with Engineers prescribing an 'ideal' setup for him. HHF was a quick driver through and through, but JV had the experience to work a car exactly to his liking.
@@djvycious Happy to debate always :)
The thing is I'm not disputing that JV did better. In 97 it's not even close. But his performance in 98 is actually quite good.
They went even in head to head races at 4-4
While JV out qualified him 10-6, the average gap was only 0.146. For comparison purposes that made them the 4th closest match team pair (The closest SOMEHOW was Shinji Nakano and Esteban Tuero at just 1 tenth). The other closer duos were Ralf/Hill at 0.136 and and Trulli/Panis at 0.116.
For comparison purposes Schumacher decimated Irvine by 0.683 and Hakkinen trounced Coulthard at 0.409. Or to use a none Championship effected battle Fisi beat Wurz by 0.375 and the worst was 1.432.
Yet none of these drivers (save the likes of Riccardo Rosset) seem to get quite the blow back from 98 that HHF does.
He took a podium and scored just 4 points less than JV despite having more DNFs and Mechanical failures.
It's a solid season. And without Spa he probably beats Damon Hill and finished P6 in the championship, close to JV.
@@Meodread Very good points all around! This debate is way too friendly for a UA-cam comments section! Why aren't we enemies yet?
The "Frentzen better then Schumacher in sportscars" thing has always puzzled me, having followed the 1991 sportcars WC as best I could (pre WWW), Schumacher was clearly the star turn out of the three.
he "put his Jordan in the wall" in the wall in the 1999 canadian gp due to a brake fail
"The fourth and final safety car of the race came out on lap 66 after Heinz-Harald Frentzen, running in second place, suffered a brake failure whilst approaching turn three and he crashed into the barriers sideways"
so let's add that to the list or something...
I totally agree with your point of view. Always had this feeling that he underachieved, basically because I though he would be as fast as Schumacher. Even Senna had some issues with the Williams enviroment at the beginnig.
Excellent video as always, mate, keep it up 👍🏼
That teacher comment reminds me of my history teacher/later form tutor/back to history teacher. Year 7 was the strictest teacher I had seen. But once year 9 came along and he was a form tutor it turned out had the best sense of humour from any teacher I had.
Perfect video Aidan! But I want to add a little bit in case of Monaco:
Monaco, I would say, was not eintirely his own fault. He and Jacques were forced from Williams to start the race on slick tyres on a completely wet track. This was not a drivers choice. And so both Williams drivers were doomed from the start of the race. What is a shame, because Frentzen started on Pole-Position and I think he would have fighted with Michael for the win, if he had started on rain tyres.
I was a big Jordan fan and Heinz was my favourite driver. I was disappointed when he was sacked.
Strange how HHF had one of his best strings of finishes when MSC was sidelined. Maybe HHF was still bitter and jealous about Corinna leaving him for MSC?
Who’s bitter now 😏?
He could get her back.. 😋
@@pipimontana 💀
@pipimontana , completely inappropriate. Her steadfast loyalty to Michael since the accident should be admired and praised, not mocked and derided.
@@pipimontana stay classy San Diego 😬
@@pipimontana
The point I was making is how psychological one's performance is. Drivers were so intimidated just seeing MSC in their mirror.
You remind me of some who had a website under the name anti-michael-schumacher. He kept it up after Micheal was hurt and kept saying terrible things about him. It's not very nice to do even if you are trolling.
awesome video, Frentzen was very unlucky in f1, a much better driver than his results show in my opinon
I’d love to hear a Beyond The Grid podcast with HHF.
It’s out now
I remember seeing a pre season car launch and interview with the drivers, and no one was asking poor HHF any questions. He did speak up : " Does anyone want to ask me anything?"
From what I understand partic the first part of the 1997 season the Williams was a bit of an animal and hard to drive and set up. JV showed his amence talent and just got on with and dealt with it and got results. Toward the end of the season the car had developed and improved but there is no doubt Williams were missing Adrian Newey. HHF compared to JV had a lacklusture season but I think he was made to look worse than how he did. Schumacher and both JV did amazing things in their cars which were difficult to drive. Again look at how Eddie did in 1997 compared to MS.
Very underrated driver. Love your content and opinion. It was so hard for Americans back then to get information on F1. We only had the Speed channel but they were based in North Carolina and only cared about NASCAR.
Aidan - I reckon a Ken Block tribute is in order. Please put your spin on it where it's respectful.
I've even forgiven him for the Escort Cosseh fire.
Gonna miss the fella.
Hey Aidan I just wanted to tell you that even though we are often on opposite oppinions and like/ dislike different drivers and teams, I still very much like your content and appreciate your effort!
Having a heated disagreement from time to time doesn't mean you don't appreciate the other guy and his content.
So thank you!
Happy New Year Aidan. Just 11,700 subs to that magic number.
Jacques admitted that he made things really difficult in terms of atmosphere between himself and Frentzen and that he could get away with certain things because if you could successfully argue your point to Patrick Head - rear wing ratios and stuff like that - Patrick let you get on with what you were doing. Frentzen's time at Williams could be summed up as "rough justice, tough luck but it seems no-one gives a fuck" as he was employed to get results, not arm over the shoulder "don't worry, there's always next time" kind of management. That said, Frentzen's prickly demeanour when the chips are down doesn't help team morale either.
Being photographed partaking in the main sponsors products, (Rothmans), didn't help matters between him and the Williams management either!!!!
@@stewartbailey1653 didn't know about that but can't say it surprises me given how strict Frank and Patrick were.
Another great video love hearing these kind of things and perspectives. I feel likes of Glock Kovalinen and even Grosjean(less his first year) in recent times came in looked impressive with wins/podiums/poles and then sort of lacked that extra and dropped towards back of grid and always left me thinking what if. I felt those 3 had some ability on there day were formidable yet never quite got it all together over a consistent spell
I was one of the kids caught up in the HHF hype. I'm from Germany but I was a huge Senna fan and never really liked "The Michael". After Senna's death I was looking for a new driver to support. Because of the legend that Senna himself was impressed by HHF and that HHF was the naturally quicker driver between himself and Schumacher in the Mercedes sports car team the choice was obvious. The problem was that HHF didn't not immediately join Williams but stayed loyal to Sauber for a couple of more years. This was tough because Schumacher was winning all the time, Damon Hill didn't seem to have it and the German media and all the bandwagon fans went crazy. When news came around that HHF would finally join Williams I was overjoyed. He would be the "Schumacher Beater", he would win several championships in a row, I would never again hear of Schumacher and he will put the whole Schumacher hype train to rest. What then happened in 97 was terrible and even 99 couldn't really make up for it. It was difficult to finally come to the realisation that Schumacher, the "enemy", was indeed the best driver in F1 and that HHF was too soft and overall inconsistent and not on his level. The Schumacher fans were laughing at me in 97 and I really had no answer. The same happened a couple of years later with Montoya. But when Montoya was dropped by McLaren I stopped being a fan of individual drivers. I simply embraced being a Schumacher hater and whoever beat him was cool with me.
du bist ein hater Schumi was so much better than Frentzen and Montoya !
HHF is my favorite driver and yes, he absolutely did underachieve at Williams - and I think he'd agree. One win and the rest of the results weren't really befitting a vice champion. His 1999 made up for it, though.
Frentzen was a classy driver (his '99 season with Jordan was superb) but he did underachieve at Williams. Why? The car looked a pig to drive on many of his onboard camera shots and apparently he didn't gel with Patrick Head (like 95% of all Williams drivers) on how to do the set up. I seem to remember the team screwed up a few times as well which cost him some decent results. I think he was much better than his final career results would suggest.
Always liked Frentzen. For me HHF is the perfect Example for a Driver who has the Talent to become a Champion but always got all the bad Luck. 1997 was the best Example for that. If anything Broke on the Williams it was his Car.
To me he did not underperformed, but he was probably not handling the Williams bullsh...i mean politics very well. But very few drivers do that. Look what happened with Hill, Mansell and so many others. HHF needed a team with less pressure and more freedom, but also a #1 driver treatment as well. In Williams he was suffering as Villeneuve was extremely motivated towards getting his first WDC and beating everyone, but Willimas had JV as #1 driver, no question. There is no way Frentzen would get that position in that team. Frentzen did the maximum he could achieve, to me his 1999 season was absolutely beyond the possibilities of that car. And to have a podium in a Sauber in the 2003 season is a miracle.
With 36 years, and without bringing in lots of money in sponsorships....it's extremely hard to get a seat in an F1 team. If you get that, it's because you are already a WDC.
Hi Aidan Happy New Year and hope you had a great Christmas 👍
I spent four days in bed with pneumonia. I didn’t have a christmas 🤣
Sorry to hear that mate hopefully your feeling better now 👍
Villeneuve was actually quite good in his prime. Everyone seems to ignore that. If you actually dig into the stats however... A more extreme comparison would be Michael Schumacher to Eddie Irvine: Eddie beat most his teammates but MS was simply on another level. In 1997 JV was at his peak (he probably actually peaked at BAR but we'll never know) and regardless of whether or not people want to admit it, was FAST. And it wasn't until years of being worn down at BAR, and a young Jenson Button (probably in his prime) that people started questioning JV's pace.
Reminds me of Berger at McLaren. Ron Dennis told Gerhard he was a diamond in the rough.
He poled his first race and had over half the points of Senna. His quarter second gap to the preternatural Brazilian was the smallest of any teammate over a season...insane speed. He had quite a few podiums
Instead of thriving in a Jordan, Berger thrived in the slowest McLaren he drove...the mediocre 1992. That was his career season. Go figure! 🤣
He wasn't supposed to finish second in the WDC and merely fight for podiums under any condition though. He was supposed to be the next best thing to Schumacher and the answer to Hill, but wasn't either. Being a Bottas or Coulthard to JV wasn't in the script and he couldn't even do that; he was brought in to replace the team leader and take it to Schumacher when Hill didn't. He was supposed to be the heir apparent to Senna at that team. No excuses can change that; he didn't appear a world beater even when he didn't have bad luck (contrast with how many leads Hill lost from bad luck or at least bad decisions in contrast). Frankly, I thought he just lived up to being HHF from what I saw at Sauber, so I didn't think he underachieved at all but he did compared to the hype. I've always felt Schumacher talked Hill, his, closest competition in the mid-90s, out of a seat by saying how well HHF would go in the Williams by comparison, where nothing HHF did at Sauber indicated he was anywhere close to Schumacher or even Hill. I remember Schumacher's high praise often being the justification for this daft move by Williams. I'd have much rather HHF been in that car than Hill too if I were MS. A little of a briar patch scenario. The Williams team is likely still paying for hiring him to this day.
Despite all the hiccups, HHF was simply a remarkable driver. On his day, the guy was simply world class. He could have achieved so much had he been in the right place at the right time in the right environment. On number of occasions, he really did seem the greatest. I think, he is one of all time greats, he was super fast and probably one of the best drivers to never win a championship. HHF should be fondly remembered as the guy who nearly won a Championship in a Jordan but also a guy, that could beat anyone if given the chance. Here is a theory, what if Jaguar signed him instead of Arrows in 2002 to team up with Irvine (and then Webber), now there's a thought. 😉.
I agree with you @f1jones544. That's exactly what HHF was touted to be until 1997: a sleeper WDC in the making. He was fast in that Sauber, so naturally, given that JV was a tad inferior to Hill on his maiden season, anyone expected him to be at the very least on par, if not straight up better. HHF was one of those guys who anyone back then was thinking he might be extremely strong given the right drive, which also was thought to be the case of Barichello.
And he let those hopes down. His 1997 season was OK, but far from WDC material. 1998 he proved much worse than JV overall and there wasn't the excuse of not knowing the team anymore.
@@ThisIsMyRodrick Frentzen's 2002 Arrows season was absolutely brilliant.
Hat tip to Big Zeddie for presenting the evidence for the prosecution in recent weeks 😁
Sir Frank was a bit too harsh on Damon in 1995 in my opinion - he finished 2nd in the Championship behind a rampant Schumacher, who he could do nothing about.
Those mid-season DNFs for HHF in 1997, which weren't his fault, cost him his place in my opinion - Williams only kept him in 1998 because they couldn't get anyone else.
Frank and Patrick were upset because in their opinion they had the best car in 1994/95 and yet Schumacher won both championships, so they dropped Hill for underperforming in a car that should have won, quiet rightly so IMO.
Now to find some cover before all the Brits start flaming me for not saying Hill is the GOAT.......
HHF is huge talent but needs right conditions, right team.
Its people's business eventually.
Psychological factor is big.
Imagine say Bottas driving for Alfa regular weekend against Bottad driving against Hamilton and for his seat race after race.
I always thought HHF had something similar to Kimi Raikkonen.
In right conditions and team behind him, unbeatable if knows nothing is pulling him back.
Its like HHF in "cold" Williams, no good results.
In Jordan, overachieving and being a black horse in WDC 99.
Its like Kimi with Lotus or McLaren or Ferrari if Ferrari just let him race.
Loved 2018 Monza Real Kimi vs Hamilton and Austin win, he knew in those races he can truly fight.
Opposite for Hungary staying behind slow Vettel or Monaco 17.
HHF was brilliant.
Can you do a special on the career of Jos Verstappen one day? I think he an interesting and tragic figure as a F1 driver.
What do you mean tragic? Jos the Boss did alright. Drove for a few different teams, no superstar, but that's fine.
I think Frentzen was mainly lacking the sort of "killer instinct" which Senna, Schumacher, Prost, Mansell etc. had. Of course he was a very fast driver, but this is not THAT special in formula 1.
On the other hand you can see at the example of Fernando Alonso, that even having nearly everything which helps you winning titles won't guarantee them. You will only win them when enough decisive factors come together.
The guy was up there with Michael and Mika i think, if only he had a team moulded around him like they had. Great video
😂😂
I always think it's difficult to be a Number 2 in a team, especially if the cards are not stacked in your favour so you essentially have to perform with one hand tied behind your back. If your teammate happens to be a once in a generation talent it is even worse. With the right tools and atmosphere Frentzen showed that he could perform, it only happened in 1999 when everything clicked.
It reminds me of Eddie Irvine who got no testing for months in 1996 after finishing third in the Australian GP. The press were getting at him wanting to know what he was going to do about it when there was nothing he could do
I disagree with Damon Hill winning the Belgian GP in controversial circumstances though. He was fastest all weekend, qualified ahead of Ralf in 3rd and as for the team orders bit, Damon initially didn't say anything wanting the team to decide. When no guidance was forthcoming he then stepped up to the plate and advised the team that Ralf shouldn't challenge him 'because we'll have an accident'. I've never thought for one minute he would off his teammate, I think he was mindfull of the fact that of the ten drivers who retired from the race, eight of those retirements were crashes. As it turned out though Ralf HAD to push Damon because of Jean Alesi. They were so quick they lapped Jarno Trulli a second time on Lap 42. Whilst Ralf wasn't happy at the time, he did accept the decision later and never had any ill will towards Damon, because when he announced his retirement he wrote a nice tribute to him in F1 racing magazine.
Now contrast this to the 2002 Austrian GP. Rubens was fastest all weekend in Practice and in Qualifying, lead every lap except one and wasn't allowed to win the race.
Damon deserved his Belgium GP win, Rubens deserved his Austrian GP win but didn't get to win it because of a spurious and unnecessary agreement that the Number 1 driver - Michael - should win all the races
I never understood why Williams had to part ways with Damon Hill? I understand that having two roosters in the coop might spur some ego issues here and there but having two legitimate winners in a team cannot be such a bad thing. Look at Hamilton versus Rosberg for example, it made Mercedes better as a team overall.
Bearing in mind that Frentzen was drafted in to replace Hill after his “disappointing” performance pre-1996; if you compare Frentzen’s results for the 1997 season with Hill’s results from his first season at Williams; Frentzen performed particularly poorly. Especially when you bear in mind that the 1994 Williams was incredibly compromised til mid-season; Hill had to take over as team leader on his 4th race of the season after Senna’s death; whilst Frentzen was joining a multi-championship winning team, in their prime, with an evolution of a championship-winning car just after it won the championship… 🤷♂️
The one thing that nobody seems to mention here is really who Frentzen was up against. Villeneuve was in the top 3 drivers in the world from 1995 to 2000, he was bang in his prime when HHF had to take him on. And simply put - Frentzen didn't have the elite consistency nor the elite performance peaks to match Villeneuve's best. Whether that was in the best car, a shitbox (98 Williams) or a superior car - JV outperformed HHF in 2000 also and the BAR was nowhere near the Jordan in pure performance.
In the 1998 Williams, it was Villeneuve that would get that bucket of shit amongst the McLarens and Ferrari's or hanging off the back of them. Frentzen rarely did.
Villeneuve was world class in his prime. There is a reason BAT built a team around him and why McLaren and Renault tried to get him late 90s, early 2000's. Frentzen was very good on his day or in the right circumstances (1999) but he didn't have killer instinct and was easily thrown off his game.
If he didn't "underperform", neither Williams driver would've won the championship that year.
In there bois! 11.7k to go
Great driver, i always was a Fan of Frentzen. Always very respectful and with a decent Car like Williams or Jordan he was very quick.
Kinda just confused how he hasn’t hit 100k yet
Spot on
I always recall Frentzen and Ralf S together - both decent enough pedallers on their day, but nothing outstanding. Ralf, of course, suffered from the same Schumacher comparison as Mick has, and HHF was sufficiently contemporaneous with JV that JV always looked better, even as he went off the rails at BAR.
Great teacher analogy for Williams and Head… it’s was Mr ‘Nobby’ Clarke and Mr Mason for me. They admitted to finding it amusing to terrify first years (Yr 7’s). Can’t see that being allowed in schools today 🤦🏼♂️
I could say Im pretty sure Hill would achieve a second Championship in 97 in that Williams. The replaced guy had more talent than HHF, and Im prety sure againg he would have beaten again Jean Neuville
Hill beat Villeneuve AND Schumacher in 1997? No chance. Damon was struggling to keep JV in check second half of '96.
@@rupertpupkin9630 Hill won 8 races while JV only 4. Hill won more races and was more consistant, so ye, I bet Hill would have beaten JV again in 97.
Yes!
Frentzen's '99 season was definitely more impressive than '97, he showed up a fast fading Damon to overachieve at Jordan but Williams signing him for '97 will still go down as a very dumb idea. Looking back, I see where Williams were coming from, '95 was a step backwards for Damon, no way round it, but signing a driver for '97 in '95 was reckless, if they had just held off till summer '96, things would have played out very differently.
Looking at myself, I thrive when pressure is absent. I’ll do more, do it better and go above and beyond, if you just let me be. Thank god my boss is the kind of guy who does just that. But in F1, you can’t do that. It’s the big boys’ league after all. Even if I was a good enough racing driver, I’d be so unhappy in that pressure cooker environment. Maybe HHF was good in endurance for the same reason. You can get a comfortable pace and win, whereas in F1 nearly every lap counts like a qualifier
Williams wanted another Michael - or even better another Alan Jones - and didn't get one. He never seemed like a team leader and having JV's 'go your own way' set up as a team mate probably did him no favours either. He would have been great with a team mate who was really good setting up a car, like Rubens, but you would never build a team around HHF because he wasn't mentally strong enough and F1 was littered with those. I certainly wouldn't have placed him as high as say, Patrese, who Williams loved despite always being on the edge of losing his seat. So I think the answer to the question is yes - to a degree - as he needed to be a Niki Lauda and not a John Watson as what you do in the car is not all what being a GP driver was - and still is - about.
The thing is, he managed much better in 1998 comparatively.
I believe that if he had had a dominant car like in 1997 but already with a year of experience in the team, he would have been much closer to Jacques.
Interesting video, on paper Frentzen's 1997 season was far better than it seemed at the time. Good strong consistent results for a number two driver (when he finished), backing up the lead driver (except the one time he really needed him to cover his back, at Jerez). Although not really able to consistently beat the opposition to deny them points. But I'm sure Frank signed him expecting him to more than that. I strongly suspect that when Frank signed him up in 1995 he was expecting Frentzen to be his no.1 driver from 1997 onwards not Villeneuve.
I don't recall at the time Villeneuve being expected to perform as well as he did in 1996. Also Damon was always ahead of him in the championship, Villeneuve never really seemed like he could get the momentum to realistically catch and pass Hill to take the title himself. And we know that Frank didn't rate Damon that highly by this time, so he was surely being judged against a low benchmark (in Frank's eyes). So I wonder if at the end of 1996 Frank still expected Frentzen to outperform Villeneuve for 1997.
It would be interesting to know the approximate dates of when Williams actually signed up Frentzen in 1995, and compare it to when the final decision was made to take on Villeneuve for 1996.
Would you consider doing a video on the 2023 NASCAR cup schedule?
In Barcelona the reason why he couldn't push was more the tyres not lasting at all, and I believe he was forced to a 3-stopper and without optimal window to pit.
Barcelona was one of JV's great wins that year. What he did with Goodyears that were falling apart was superb.
Williams were not renowned for treating drivers well. No driver has ever won more than 1 drivers title with Williams since most of them except Rosberg would leave within 12 months of winning the championship
Can't quite agree with you I'm afraid. I loved seeing what HHF did at Jordan but he really had a poor time in 97. He was constantly off JV's pace, so even if his results were consistent on the second half of the season it was still consistently off the pace. I seem to remember it being much closer between them in 98. Also JV underperformed in several races, being shocking in the wet I think at Monaco and being well off the pace at Hockenheim (off the top of my head), but I remember him having some really poor weekends, yet HHF still was way behind him in the championship.
When your team mate wins the championship and you don't, the answer is yes.
I always take issue with Hill's 95 season being 'bad,' he took 7 Poles, 4 wins, 5 more podiums and came 4th once. The rest of the time he had 3 mechanical DNFs, collided with Schumacher twice (they really didn't like each other very much) and crashed twice by his own fault. Saying it was bad sounds very much like excuse making from Frank and Patrick for why their car was so far behind Schumacher in his Brawn/Todt/Byrne Benetton with the same engine.
@@_CJ Actually I watched it live, when 'that' collision happened at Jerez I ran round the house yelling in excitement. Frentzen was anonymous too much of the time.
@@_CJ he had the same wheel bearing failure Damon had at Silverstone.
Tbf the issue with Williams in 95 wasn’t the car granted I wasn’t alive to watch the season but when I watch it the one thing I take away from it is how incompetent Williams were operationally that year compared to Benetton especially in terms of strategies
Damon making more mistakes than in 94 didn’t help neither did Schumacher not being a naughty boy that season
@@_CJ I wonder what happens that season if Sam Michael and HHF remembered their usual pit procedure that day
@@_CJ Short answer no. Longer answer, Jacques drove 5 laps before the wheel came off, it was a part failure. No pit crew would deliberately put their driver into that kind of danger.
Idk, Kovalainen was trying to be the better finn, not the better driver and well. Yea...
HHZ, interviews etc. He had a Schumacher silhouette indent on his shoulder. But like, this is off track analysis and all.
I have always loved Heinz Harald Duchovny.
Noticed the Mila pronunciation of 'the Michael' 😂
Hungary wasn’t a fuel pump issue, the ring that was needed to lock the refueling nozzle to the car, flew off on the main straight. Therefore, it wasn’t possible to refuel the car
Yes and no, compared to Villeneuve in 96 as no2 yes but no because I’ve always thought that was a complete number 2 seat
in the days following that brazilian gp i´ve read in a sport or car magazin that hhf´s race engeineer admittet that after the race they discovered that one of the dampers was installed the wrong way. the right rear was installed left and the left was installed right or the other way round. or upside down, i can´t remember...it´s more than 25 years since. but that "off the pace" hat a reason...
3:35 The Michael
Well, actually the brake that failured was the of a front wheel and, the left one.
Frentzen was great! I wished he achieved more though
I think some of the other guys, just have had a bigger fire in their bellis-same talent, but more willing to take risks. Sometimes it can bite you. Cheers from the Pacific West Coast of Canada.
Remember one of his former engineers, who worked with many drivers including champion, when asked who was the most talented driver....said 'Frentzen'. Guess he had the skills/talent but maybe was too much of a nice guy. Schumacher, who nicked Frentzen's girlfriend, maybe wasn't a more talented racer, but he had Flavio, then Ross and Jean and a Ferrari and Bridgestone crew testing/developing 24/7 at Fiorano. Same with Lewis imo....Button wasn't really less of a driver than Lewis but again too much of a nice guy. When Schumacher, Vettel and Hamilton were not in the best car anymore, they never won a race anymore, they had better stopped racing imo.
I kinda see HHF as a bit of a Hulk. I remember watching back then wanting him to do much better, but it was never to be.
Wait. I was under the impression that in the 70’s-early 2000’s, that if a driver stalled on the grid or in the box, that was because of driver error. Am I wrong??
I'm pretty certain JV would give HHF dodgy set ups. JV has admitted he used to do that to teammates mates to get upper hand over his teammates. And I'm almost certain he was referring to HHF at Williams as there a championship to fight for. Can't really see that happening to Zonta as there wasn't as much at stake.
After all the sh*t Mansell went through with Prost. Mansell admitted to doing the same with Patrese at Williams.
That doesn't make sense, HHF has his own engineer(s) to make his own setups!
Maybe i'm biased cause 99 was my first season and frentzen eas the goat there but i have always thinked that most of frentzen errors was williams fault, like in Monaco where in a litteral flood was given dry setup
Frentzen was clearly treated as a second driver, cause it honestly seems that he was never allowed to have more point than villeneuve in the championship
At Spa he was actually 4th but Hakkinen was disqualified for a fuel issue and Frentzen bumped to 3rd. Still think he just wasnt consistent enough earlier in the season and in that Williams should have had more than one victory. Great Video.
Well JV beat Frentzen in quali 13-4 that season and on the contrary DH beat JV 13-3 in the previous season, so compared to the expectations Frentzen clearly underperformed. Surely it would've been more even between Hill and Villeneuve the following season but HHF definately wasn't the Schumacher-beater what FW thought him to be
Frentzen beat Hill 14-2 in 1999😜
Villeneuve was learning most of the tracks on GP weekends in 1996. That explains the qualifying scoreline with Hill 🤷♂️
@@rupertpupkin9630 You're right and like I wrote it would've been more even in 1997. And I actually believe that hiring HHF was a fluke for Frank and Patrick cause Hill and Villeneuve as teammates woud've raced each other and taken points from each other as well and MSC woud've won the title cause he didn't have competitor in his own team